Cheats in UT2004

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

"Flash" <NOSPAM@digdilem.org> wrote in message
news:XKSdne3_EKdd9lncRVnyiw@eclipse.net.uk...
> goPostal wrote:
>
>> Funny thing is is that the last time I mentioned about this I was
>> crucified on the NG by a few posters (maybe a year ago? Time gets
>> away...), called a cheater, and ended up defending myself quite a bit. On
>> the flip side three of the regulars here asked me by email for a copy of
>> the latest bot so they could see for themselves. Funny isn't it?
>
> It is indeed. Now imagine how many requests you get when you host a
> website dedicated to the subject...
>
> I wonder how many requests CSHP/Pure/NBSP/Ash/UTDC/Qvalidate get?
>
> --
> Flash

I get your point. I'll bet it gets old. Still I think it's great that you
keep the information out there. You're doing a great service.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

Just tried a speed hack in UT2004.
http://www.download.com/Speed-Gear/3000-2121-10290541.html?tag=lst-0-1
It ROCKS.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

Hi Lars,


> shot in a hellbender, or when a tank can shoot me every time without
> having to suffer random shot spread, which doesn't even have a
> powerup, then there is evidence for botting/cheating.


Weapon damage for the AVRiL is defined in "ONSAVRiLRocket.uc". The
default damage for the AVRiL is set by the map to 125. The
"VehicleDamageScaling" for the AVRiL (defined in
"DamTypeONSAVRiLRocket.uc") is set to "1.6" -- in other words, if it
hits a Hellbender or any other vehicle, the AVRiL does exactly 200
damage.

So, this leads me to conclude one of three things (regarding your
statement that it took you 6 shots with an AVRiL to blow-up a
Hellbender):


1) you are potentially mistaken;

2) you play on servers where the admin has modified the maps to minimize
the damage caused by certain players using certain weapons (and/or
increase the damage caused by others); or,

3) there exists a client-side bot (or hack) which temporarily modifies
the server (and its map) to increase an individual player's damage (and
decrease yours), and, upon termination, undo all changes to the server
such that administrators never realize that anything was tampered
with.


I think that the simplest solution is usually the correct one. Item (3)
seems highly implausible. Item (2) is possible, though were this the
case, you would have noticed the modified maps being downloaded to your
system. Which leads me to think that Item (1) is probably the most
likely explanation.


Or, put another way:

A hack to a client will only alter the client-side operation (i.e., the
data presented to the user), or the data output to the server. This
might, conceptually, include improving a user's aim, modifying textures
to permit transparency, allowing for player "radar", changing the field-
of-view (enabling "behind-view"), etc. (The Aimbot FAQ lists a few more
along these same lines.) Server-side properties like weapon damage,
speed, firing rate, the way the weapons look, switch, their sound, etc.
cannot be changed by clients in any way. (Well ... unless -- and I find
this very unlikely -- there exists a serious security hole in UT2004
servers.)

So, this means, to me, that you either play on servers that host
tampered maps, or, as I was alluding to in my previous post, you are
simply mistaken about the damage that you took or delivered in a
previous game.

The reason that I've continued to call into question your claims about
the prevalence of cheating is aptly summarized in the Aimbot FAQ:


"UT has been ruined by aimbots. Not just because they're used, but
because it's made people paranoid. Does your opponent seem good? Perhaps
too good? Maybe he's using a bot? Could be. Or it could be he's just
good. See the problem?"


I'm afraid that some players continue to perpetuate this kind of
negative paranoia through a protracted and ill-informed witch hunt
whenever they encounter others who are simply exceptionally talented.


regards,
Kris

 

[Flash]

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

goPostal wrote:

> Hey Flash! How've ya been? You make some very important points here. One
> needs the other to survive. (Actually it was you who got me so interested in
> cheats in the first place. Your aimbot FAQ simply fascinated me when I first
> read it.)

Great! Good to see so many of the old faces still in here, although I've
never really gone away - just forget to check now and then

--
Flash

 

[mark]

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament,alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

Sometimes I'll miss flattening someone in the manta and back over him with a
little luck, without changing directions.




"Sloper" <steveo40uk@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:32akuvF3j6haeU1@individual.net...
> Lars Wilsen wrote:
>
>> Try spectating once in a while. Again, people have said they're using
>> a manta bot, I've been tracked and backed over from far to great a
>> distance not to have had a bot involved, and you can't view far behind
>> you when also shooting at a node. And again, I've spectated people
>> climbing the hills around the center node in Arctic Stronghold (the
>> side cliffs - all the way to the top) and watched people shooting out
>> the side and front of the manta in successive shots. There is no
>> question about whether a bot is in use, I was only pointing out that
>> Epic should do more to stop it or at least to make it difficult.
>
> Nothing of what you say has convinced me that a 'Manta bot' exists.
> I've played ONS since it first appeared, virtually every night, and can't
> say I've ever suspected a Manta pilot of cheating.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament,alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

Yeah, me too. I was actually referring to people who track you over
some distance, as you run to avoid them, while moving backward. I was
trying to point out a clear circumstance where manta bots can be
spotted - most people can spot aimbots where there used. I've also
played with people who can run you down sideways by judging from the
direction the projectiles are coming at them.

I was allowing for better players (of which there are a majority).


On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 08:36:54 GMT, "Mark" <mustango656@comcast.net>
wrote:

>Sometimes I'll miss flattening someone in the manta and back over him with a
>little luck, without changing directions.
>
>"Sloper" <steveo40uk@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:32akuvF3j6haeU1@individual.net...
>> Lars Wilsen wrote:
>>
>>> Try spectating once in a while. Again, people have said they're using
>>> a manta bot, I've been tracked and backed over from far to great a
>>> distance not to have had a bot involved, and you can't view far behind
>>> you when also shooting at a node. And again, I've spectated people
>>> climbing the hills around the center node in Arctic Stronghold (the
>>> side cliffs - all the way to the top) and watched people shooting out
>>> the side and front of the manta in successive shots. There is no
>>> question about whether a bot is in use, I was only pointing out that
>>> Epic should do more to stop it or at least to make it difficult.
>>
>> Nothing of what you say has convinced me that a 'Manta bot' exists.
>> I've played ONS since it first appeared, virtually every night, and can't
>> say I've ever suspected a Manta pilot of cheating.
>

 

[mark]

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament,alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

You guys should play ons at the ARC or SWS servers. I never see any cheating
there and I'm good.

MARKILL


"PyroStorm_DK" <pyrostorm_dk@slet.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cpnslt$d3l$1@news.cybercity.dk...
>
> "Lars Wilsen" <spam@someone.else> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:iclkr01i1bio883kid1umeo424n1jbt7eq@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 17:17:47 GMT, "eiurgoleiop" <woetpp@sodfgo.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Just wondering how much known cheating is going on out there? I heard
> some
>> >guy talking about his 'manta bot' the other day after running over a
> bunch
>> >of people. Wasn't sure if he was just kidding or what. I've never
> really
>> >seen anything conclusive, but was just wondering. I hope UT2k4 doesn't
> end
>> >up like counter strike or halo with all the cheating.
>>
>> I tend to think there is a lot of cheating going on, myself. It's
>> difficult to see behind you in a manta, but I ham constatnly having
>> others track me as I dodge while they're moving backward, which means
>> they pretty much have to be using a manta bot. You can also only move
>> at descrete forward directions in a manta using either just forward or
>> a combination of forward and strafe, so anyone who is managing to
>> curve into you without changing the orientation of the manta itself is
>> almost certainly botting. Half the time when I point out that soemone
>> is botting, they admit to it, so I think those constitute reliable
>> critera for detecting them.
>>
>> I think about a third of the servers I play on online has someone
>> using a bot or hack of some sort in use, which seems like a very
>> percentage to me.
>>
>> I have found that by jumping toward the manta but to one side as it
>> comes toward you that you can get it to fly by, but you still have to
>> kill it because the bot will bring the manta back toward you a lot
>> faster than a human could. I even had two bot users from the HK clan
>> orbiting me for some five revolutions because their bots wouldn't let
>> them go on and play the game.
>>
>> I've considered writting a bot to detect manta bots or at least to act
>> as an aimbot specifically against those I know to be botting, but I
>> haven't had the time, and I haven't seen any references to how they're
>> written (I'm a programmer).
>>
>> Onslaught is a great game and I really hope Battle-Zone style games
>> like it take off (I think it's the most played game of those provided
>> in 2K4), but Unreal definitely has a problem with bots and hacks.
>>
>> Lars
>
> When using outside view when flying the manta it is possible to do vehicle
> manslaughter while pounding the node. However, I will agree that most of
> the
> time it is at least 50 pct luck.... for me at least.
> I never really thought of a manta bot, but the movements you descripe are
> way too familiar. I have practiced a lot trying to figure out how the he..
> they make such tight turns and moves, all in vain.
> Couldn't agree more, cheats are so bad for the gaming experience... But
> will
> there ever be a cheat-free game?
>
> Brgds, PyroStorm_DK
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

I think the best advice I've gotten from this thread was to change to
third person view while operating the Manta. I've done this the last
couple days and have added about 30% to my Manta kills. I have the
aspect ratio bound to my mouse wheel, so I can zoom out when I get
into a crowd of infantry. I'm racking up kills backing up at about a
1 to 4 ratio of kills in my normal field of view. Prior to switiching
point of views, it was pure spam luck.

That being said, I still haven't gotten the performance out of my
manta the guy I suspected of having "help" Seeing the Manta more in
third person, I haven't seen it look like that dude's did. If I was
to his right, his Manta had a noticable dip to the side I was on as it
was veering into me. Even after a double jump dodge. No matter what
direction I'm going, my Manta stays flat.

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 12:24:38 GMT, Christoofar <nospam@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>I would not want to download any cheat programs, however I would like
>to know where the websites are so I can see the variety of
>availability to confirm my suspicions.
>
>Again, I notice these things most rampant on the demo servers, and
>there is a dramatic swing when the players I suspect of having an
>"edge" come in.
>
>For instance, two days ago, a player came in and was racking up frags.
>I got into several one on ones with this guy. I was nailing him 3 to
>1, but he won every one...these were pretty drawn out encounters, so I
>know he wasn't that good or he would have eaten my lunch earlier in
>the battle. The only way to get him was with a instant kill, like a
>point blank flak hit or crushing in a manta. This was on Primeaval
>where there isn't much armor. It was like he had a regen program or
>something. Also, his manta was extremely agile. I noticed it was
>always tilted towards me when I got hit. It was an odd look for the
>manta. No matter which way I jumped it was tilted that way. Nobody
>can be that lucky to anticipate moves EVERY time and react that way
>AND have the mobility of the manta to make the kill. Oh, and was
>able to dodge AVRILS and escape them with ease. Nuff said.
>
>On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 18:10:42 -0800, "goPostal" <none@this.time> wrote:
>
>>
>>"{AGUT}DeadMan" <oldman1961@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>newsan.2004.12.16.01.22.13.186050@hotmail.com...
>>> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 19:14:17 -0800, goPostal wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's not the
>>>> auto-fire trigger bots from two years ago now. Most of the bottom tier
>>>> cheats wall-hack, radar with health/weapon/ammo for everyone, give you
>>>> behind view, and even tell you when someone can see you and if they begin
>>>> to aim at you. They only get more sophisticated from there. How can you
>>>> NOT be interested in how something like that works?
>>>
>>> I, for one, would be very interested in hearing your thoughts, in depth,
>>> concerning the current state of the cheat/ anti-cheat situation if you
>>> have the time. I've not made a study of the subject and am in no way
>>> interested in using such a method, but would like to be aware of things to
>>> look for. Thanks and good to see you post again.
>>>
>>> --
>>> {AGUT}DeadMan
>>>
>>
>>No prob DeadMan. I stay pretty active on the cheater boards and I'd be more
>>than happy to reference you to any information you might want to see. I
>>think it's narrow-minded to think that just because someone has interest
>>that they are automatically cheating. You don't have to defend jack to us. I
>>am interested (like you, and I'll wager quite a few others here) in how
>>these things work. Just because you own a gun doesn't mean you are
>>automatically a hunter, you know?
>>Funny thing is is that the last time I mentioned about this I was crucified
>>on the NG by a few posters (maybe a year ago? Time gets away...), called a
>>cheater, and ended up defending myself quite a bit. On the flip side three
>>of the regulars here asked me by email for a copy of the latest bot so they
>>could see for themselves. Funny isn't it? I just think that if more
>>people were educated about how these things work, they'd be a hell of a lot
>>more aware as to what's really going on. Nothing helps solve a problem quite
>>like shining a bright light on it.
>>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 06:32:36 -0800, "goPostal" <none@this.time> wrote:



> I'll be interested
>in seeing if Epic does any changes in the next game to disallow cheating in
>the form it has now. Personally I'd say not and here's why: Cheaters buy
>game copies. Lots of them.

The Unreal franchise has sold several *million* units. My guess is
that cheaters represent less than a tenth of a percent of total sales,
which is chump change. To imply that Epic has an economic incentive
to allow cheaters is WAY off base.

I'm sure Epic would love to eliminate cheating, but the open design of
the game makes that virtually impossible.

 

[Sloper]

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament,alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

Lars Wilsen wrote:

> I've also played with people who can run you down sideways by judging from the
> direction the projectiles are coming at them.

Yes? This is quite possible, and easy if you fly the Manta in the
third-person view and zoom out. Many people, including myself, do it in
the enemy base in Arctic Stronghold, for example.
When attacking the core from the raised walkway, you can be aware of
players attacking you from the sides and so fly over and crush them.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

"Folk" <Folk@folk.com> wrote in message
news:5l1es0tt7nkvoclmocsucssk0fkh0n5e63@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 06:32:36 -0800, "goPostal" <none@this.time> wrote:
>
>
>
>> I'll be interested
>>in seeing if Epic does any changes in the next game to disallow cheating
>>in
>>the form it has now. Personally I'd say not and here's why: Cheaters buy
>>game copies. Lots of them.
>
> The Unreal franchise has sold several *million* units. My guess is
> that cheaters represent less than a tenth of a percent of total sales,
> which is chump change. To imply that Epic has an economic incentive
> to allow cheaters is WAY off base.
>

You're making an extra leap there. Epic has an incentive to build interest
in it's games. You have the modding commmunity, the skinners, the map
makers, etc. All this interest keeps the game going and selling copies. It's
no different with cheating. You get much of the same thing as the other
communities. Interest sells copies. To say they "allow" cheating is probably
a bit strong. "Tolerate" would be a better choice I believe.

> I'm sure Epic would love to eliminate cheating, but the open design of
> the game makes that virtually impossible.

It's the CD key that makes UT cheating interesting. If they really wanted to
stop cheating they could with banning. They won't though because the bottom
line is it will lose sales for them. If they were to ban 1% of the CD keys
for confirmed cheating (a VERY conservative number) can you imagine the
outcry it would create? UT would be known as the game you buy to not be able
to play.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

Flash wrote:
> goPostal wrote:
>
>> Hey Flash! How've ya been? You make some very important points here.
>> One needs the other to survive. (Actually it was you who got me so
>> interested in cheats in the first place. Your aimbot FAQ simply
>> fascinated me when I first read it.)
>
>
> Great! Good to see so many of the old faces still in here, although I've
> never really gone away - just forget to check now and then
>

Ditto that - just trying out Thunderbird as a news reader

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

On Mon, 2004-12-20 at 15:55 -0600, SomeOldDude wrote:
> > This is quite possible, and easy if you fly the Manta in the
> > third-person view and zoom out.
>
> How do ya zoom out?


I believe that the default settings for zooming are scroll up/down on
the mouse wheel. (And "F4" alternates between in-vehicle and behind-
the-vehicle views.)

(I find that I prefer a "behind" view for the ground-based vehicles, but
an in-vehicle view for the Raptor & Cicada.)

cheers,
Kris

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

Christoofar wrote:
> I think the best advice I've gotten from this thread was to change to
> third person view while operating the Manta. I've done this the last
> couple days and have added about 30% to my Manta kills. I have the
> aspect ratio bound to my mouse wheel, so I can zoom out when I get
> into a crowd of infantry. I'm racking up kills backing up at about a
> 1 to 4 ratio of kills in my normal field of view. Prior to switiching
> point of views, it was pure spam luck.
>
> That being said, I still haven't gotten the performance out of my
> manta the guy I suspected of having "help" Seeing the Manta more in
> third person, I haven't seen it look like that dude's did. If I was
> to his right, his Manta had a noticable dip to the side I was on as it
> was veering into me. Even after a double jump dodge. No matter what
> direction I'm going, my Manta stays flat.
>
> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 12:24:38 GMT, Christoofar <nospam@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>I would not want to download any cheat programs, however I would like
>>to know where the websites are so I can see the variety of
>>availability to confirm my suspicions.
>>
>>Again, I notice these things most rampant on the demo servers, and
>>there is a dramatic swing when the players I suspect of having an
>>"edge" come in.
>>
>>For instance, two days ago, a player came in and was racking up frags.
>>I got into several one on ones with this guy. I was nailing him 3 to
>>1, but he won every one...these were pretty drawn out encounters, so I
>>know he wasn't that good or he would have eaten my lunch earlier in
>>the battle. The only way to get him was with a instant kill, like a
>>point blank flak hit or crushing in a manta. This was on Primeaval
>>where there isn't much armor. It was like he had a regen program or
>>something. Also, his manta was extremely agile. I noticed it was
>>always tilted towards me when I got hit. It was an odd look for the
>>manta. No matter which way I jumped it was tilted that way. Nobody
>>can be that lucky to anticipate moves EVERY time and react that way
>>AND have the mobility of the manta to make the kill. Oh, and was
>>able to dodge AVRILS and escape them with ease. Nuff said.
>>
>>On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 18:10:42 -0800, "goPostal" <none@this.time> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"{AGUT}DeadMan" <oldman1961@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>newsan.2004.12.16.01.22.13.186050@hotmail.com...
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 19:14:17 -0800, goPostal wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>It's not the
>>>>>auto-fire trigger bots from two years ago now. Most of the bottom tier
>>>>>cheats wall-hack, radar with health/weapon/ammo for everyone, give you
>>>>>behind view, and even tell you when someone can see you and if they begin
>>>>>to aim at you. They only get more sophisticated from there. How can you
>>>>>NOT be interested in how something like that works?
>>>>
>>>>I, for one, would be very interested in hearing your thoughts, in depth,
>>>>concerning the current state of the cheat/ anti-cheat situation if you
>>>>have the time. I've not made a study of the subject and am in no way
>>>>interested in using such a method, but would like to be aware of things to
>>>>look for. Thanks and good to see you post again.
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>{AGUT}DeadMan
>>>>
>>>
>>>No prob DeadMan. I stay pretty active on the cheater boards and I'd be more
>>>than happy to reference you to any information you might want to see. I
>>>think it's narrow-minded to think that just because someone has interest
>>>that they are automatically cheating. You don't have to defend jack to us. I
>>>am interested (like you, and I'll wager quite a few others here) in how
>>>these things work. Just because you own a gun doesn't mean you are
>>>automatically a hunter, you know?
>>>Funny thing is is that the last time I mentioned about this I was crucified
>>>on the NG by a few posters (maybe a year ago? Time gets away...), called a
>>>cheater, and ended up defending myself quite a bit. On the flip side three
>>>of the regulars here asked me by email for a copy of the latest bot so they
>>>could see for themselves. Funny isn't it? I just think that if more
>>>people were educated about how these things work, they'd be a hell of a lot
>>>more aware as to what's really going on. Nothing helps solve a problem quite
>>>like shining a bright light on it.
>>>
>
>

Try hitting the secondary attack as you move, this will cause your manta
to push downward towards the ground insuring that you don't
accidentally overshoot the target because of ground elevation. This does
cause the manta to dip so it might be what you are seeing.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament,alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 12:29:54 +0000, Sloper <steveo40uk@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

>Lars Wilsen wrote:
>
>> I've also played with people who can run you down sideways by judging from the
>> direction the projectiles are coming at them.
>
>Yes? This is quite possible, and easy if you fly the Manta in the
>third-person view and zoom out. Many people, including myself, do it in
>the enemy base in Arctic Stronghold, for example.
>When attacking the core from the raised walkway, you can be aware of
>players attacking you from the sides and so fly over and crush them.

Yup ... didn't mean to say that that implied cheating.

 

[Flash]

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

[Fitz]Tutenkamu{AGUT} wrote

>> Great! Good to see so many of the old faces still in here, although
>> I've never really gone away - just forget to check now and then

> Ditto that - just trying out Thunderbird as a news reader

Pretty good, for a gui program...

I've moved all my users onto tbird now, because of A: It's junk-filters
are superb, and B: It's not Outlook.

--
Flash

 

[Sloper]

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament,alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

SomeOldDude wrote:
> "Sloper" <steveo40uk@yahoo.co.uk> sez:
>
>>This is quite possible, and easy if you fly the Manta in the
>>third-person view and zoom out.
>
>
> How do ya zoom out?

Hello again ~SOD~

I use the mouse scroll-wheel to zoom in or out. Its not a lot of use,
but it *is* useful sometimes. eg. to see more around you when in the
Manta, or in a gun-turret, when your view is obscured by foliage etc.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

Flash wrote:
> [Fitz]Tutenkamu{AGUT} wrote
>
>> Ditto that - just trying out Thunderbird as a news reader
>
>
> Pretty good, for a gui program...
>
> I've moved all my users onto tbird now, because of A: It's junk-filters
> are superb, and B: It's not Outlook.
>


Indeed, it's also bloody fast!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 17:56:40 -0800, "goPostal" <none@this.time> wrote:

>> I am really scratching my head over this one gP. I don't understand
>> how anyone could possibly believe what you're saying here. Epic, and
>> most other game developers hate cheaters. To imply that they coddle
>> to them for economic reasons is ludicrous, especially given the
>> miniscule numbers involved.
>>
>
>I was aware of the banning that you are talking about. They stopped far
>short though because the public outcry was so against it. There were some
>false positives (or so was said, who really knows) and they became very
>vocal in a legal sense about not being able to play a game that was paid
>for. I read a couple of really good stories about this. I'll try to dig up a
>couple of links if I get time this evening. It's actually some pretty good
>reading if you like that sort of thing.

I would love to see one of those cases go to court, but it won't
happen. It's very unlikely that any individual cheater has the
financial means to pursue a lawsuit against a company the size of Epic
or Atari/Midway. And really... who would want to get in front of a
judge and jury and admit that they are a low-life cheat? And what
jury would have sympathy for that individual? A good lawyer would
make them look like a total putz.

>Look, you and I obviously disagree about this, but the bottom line is cash.
>Widening the scope to include most of the major online games, one only needs
>to look at the number of websites, bulletin boards, and groups dedicated to
>fostering cheating. It's not a small number. These game makers know this yet
>they still put out games that are rife with cheats from the word go.

There aren't that many websites devoted to UT cheating (let's stay on
topic here) and the one's that do exist don't stick around for long.
(see http://www.utcheats.com/ for example)

>For that matter, name me a top-selling game in the past two years that
>hasn't shipped with cheat codes already installed? Some people like to cheat
>and the game makers will bend to them some because they do buy games. Now
>some game makers try to keep thier hands clean by making a cheater enable
>"programmer" functions in order to enable cheats, but still they leave them
>enabled. They know EXACTLY who they are selling to.

That's a horse of a different color. I've used cheats before to
create benchmarking demos (so I won't die) or to explore maps (flying,
ghost, etc.) but that has nothing to do with gaming online and using
cheats to gain advantage over other REAL players. Why would you even
mention this??

With your vast knowledge of UT cheat sites on the 'net, why don't you
fire off an e-mail to abuse@epicgames.com and let them know what you
know. You are either part of the problem or part of the solution.
Which one is it?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

"Folk" <Folk@folk.com> wrote in message
newsktls0hkpg965g3c3na4qu4ukbflmh5b7h@4ax.com...
| On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 17:56:40 -0800, "goPostal" <none@this.time>
wrote:
|
| >> I am really scratching my head over this one gP. I don't
understand
| >> how anyone could possibly believe what you're saying here. Epic,
and
| >> most other game developers hate cheaters. To imply that they
coddle
| >> to them for economic reasons is ludicrous, especially given the
| >> miniscule numbers involved.
| >>
| >
| >I was aware of the banning that you are talking about. They stopped
far
| >short though because the public outcry was so against it. There
were some
| >false positives (or so was said, who really knows) and they became
very
| >vocal in a legal sense about not being able to play a game that was
paid
| >for. I read a couple of really good stories about this. I'll try to
dig up a
| >couple of links if I get time this evening. It's actually some
pretty good
| >reading if you like that sort of thing.
|
| I would love to see one of those cases go to court, but it won't
| happen. It's very unlikely that any individual cheater has the
| financial means to pursue a lawsuit against a company the size of
Epic
| or Atari/Midway. And really... who would want to get in front of a
| judge and jury and admit that they are a low-life cheat? And what
| jury would have sympathy for that individual? A good lawyer would
| make them look like a total putz.
|

Ever heard of persons with the audacity to lie while under oath?
Happens every day. Clients lie to their lawyers also b/c the client
think it's morally acceptable since the client is under the false
impression that he has been legally wronged by way of his lies.

I do agree tho, none of these lamers will ever file a lawsuit as the
cost is simply far too outrageous versus the price of buying another
copy of the program.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

"Folk" <Folk@folk.com> wrote in message
newsktls0hkpg965g3c3na4qu4ukbflmh5b7h@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 17:56:40 -0800, "goPostal" <none@this.time> wrote:
> I would love to see one of those cases go to court, but it won't
> happen. It's very unlikely that any individual cheater has the
> financial means to pursue a lawsuit against a company the size of Epic
> or Atari/Midway. And really... who would want to get in front of a
> judge and jury and admit that they are a low-life cheat? And what
> jury would have sympathy for that individual? A good lawyer would
> make them look like a total putz.
>

Lawyers don't see it as a single person. They see it as fraud. You paid for
something and cannot use it now. I know the TOS allows Epic a lot of
latitude here and frankly I don't want to get into a discussion of business
ethics. About the only thing I would say here is that Epic better be damned
sure that they ban stone-cold cheaters and not mistakenly disallow honest
people. Are you following the threads on Steam that are going on around the
net? Ought to give you some idea what people think when you start messing
with the game they paid for.

> There aren't that many websites devoted to UT cheating (let's stay on
> topic here) and the one's that do exist don't stick around for long.
> (see http://www.utcheats.com/ for example)

UT99 is an aging game. Of course there won't be as many sites as there were,
say, 3 years ago. Same thing is happening with America's Army, Quake, and
some of the other older games. Lots of fan sites but it starts to peter out
as the game gets more dated. Still though there are *lots* of cheat sites
for the major games. Why? Because there is a lot of interest in it.

> That's a horse of a different color. I've used cheats before to
> create benchmarking demos (so I won't die) or to explore maps (flying,
> ghost, etc.) but that has nothing to do with gaming online and using
> cheats to gain advantage over other REAL players. Why would you even
> mention this??
>

OK, so now some cheats are OK, but others are not? See, this is the slippery
slope. You are trying to apply a moral ruler to this and it's basically a
black/white issue. Either it's fine to use cheats to gain advantage or it's
not. And where do "cheats" begin and end? Is altering your FOV (like you
used to be able to do in UT99) to be able to see more than others cheating?
It's allowed if you know how to alter the settings, but it gives you an
unfair advantage. Same with keybinds and macros (not to mention the cow
hitbox . I don't know the answers here but it's a bit judgemental to say
that any cheat that won't work online is OK. Where can you draw the line so
that everyone knows what's good and what's bad? You really can't. Not with
the way that games are designed today.

> With your vast knowledge of UT cheat sites on the 'net, why don't you
> fire off an e-mail to abuse@epicgames.com and let them know what you
> know. You are either part of the problem or part of the solution.
> Which one is it?
>

Look, I admit that I thoroughly enjoy the cheating community. It is a fun
pursuit for me. I'll allow it may be a bit asinine for me to be comfortable
in partaking of the cheat community simply because I feel no desire to play
online with assistance. Still, why would I strive to help destroy what I
enjoy? People are going to cheat on online games. The only way to stop it is
to engineer it out of the games, and this goes back to catering to the
customer. The customer wants to be able to cheat for whatever reasons (like
your benchmarking).

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 16:54:52 -0800, "goPostal" <none@this.time> wrote:
> The customer wants to be able to cheat for whatever reasons (like
>your benchmarking).

If you can't glean a difference between using cheats on and off line,
then there's no point in continuing this discussion.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

"goPostal" <none@this.time> wrote in message
news:jSJyd.3485$4w.1223@fe03.lga...
|
| "Folk" <Folk@folk.com> wrote in message
| newsktls0hkpg965g3c3na4qu4ukbflmh5b7h@4ax.com...
| > On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 17:56:40 -0800, "goPostal" <none@this.time>
wrote:
| > I would love to see one of those cases go to court, but it won't
| > happen. It's very unlikely that any individual cheater has the
| > financial means to pursue a lawsuit against a company the size of
Epic
| > or Atari/Midway. And really... who would want to get in front of
a
| > judge and jury and admit that they are a low-life cheat? And what
| > jury would have sympathy for that individual? A good lawyer would
| > make them look like a total putz.
| >
|
| Lawyers don't see it as a single person. They see it as fraud. You
paid for
| something and cannot use it now. I know the TOS allows Epic a lot of
| latitude here and frankly I don't want to get into a discussion of
business
| ethics. About the only thing I would say here is that Epic better be
damned
| sure that they ban stone-cold cheaters and not mistakenly disallow
honest
| people. Are you following the threads on Steam that are going on
around the
| net? Ought to give you some idea what people think when you start
messing
| with the game they paid for.
|


I'm a lawyer, and let me tell you how lawyers see it. Lawyers see the
way their clients want them to see it. In other words, if the client
believes a wrong is being perpetrated, the lawyer will take whatever
legal stance and legal action that supports that perspective.
Further, lawyers see a legal scenario from many viewpoints, including
offensive strategies, potential defenses one will face, and the costs
involved to pursue such litigation.

As to a single user crying foul over a game that does not work due to
suspected cheating by the end user, the answers are found in the
license, which typically include terms wherein the license may be
revoked at the drop of a hat by the licensor.

It is my reaction that disabling CD keys may result in additional
sales, which in turn is additional revenue. I do not forsee a large
movement by cheaters (or non-cheaters) against any software company
for such actions. Instead, there will be outcries of a singular
nature. The company may easily dispense with such outcries by
offering refunds or new CD keys, and clearly, a new key is much
cheaper to dispense.

As to my perspective on the authors of software hacks and/or cheats, a
few simple clauses in a license can make online multiplayer cheating a
very expensive proposition for such morally corrupt individuals. For
example, a liquidated damages clause in the license specifying the end
user agrees to pay the licensor a fixed amount of money if the
licensee is shown to have created a derivitive work or version of the
game that "alters" the basic mechanisms of the game in such a fashion
as to corrupt the original intent of the game. A $1000 limit on the
liquidated damages, plus an "award of attorneys fees" clause should
the cheat author be successfully proven to be the source of the
altered code would be a scary prospect to face should a morally
corrupt kid sit down to write some cheat code. Of course, the real
issue is what is a cheat. Is altering FOV a cheat? I think not, it's
merely a setting the designers intended the end user might change.
FOV changes are an exploit, not a cheat. Be careful to understand the
meaning of "exploit", which is "to make productive use of".
Competitive online multiplayer ladders should decide whether such
exploits should be allowed or disallowed. The same can be said for
shock combos and other scripting features that the game provides
access to for the end user.

An open design engine such as the UT engine presents a particularly
difficult challenge to the authors in terms of enjoining undesirable
modifications since mods are an "encouraged" aspect of the game's
original design. In this case, the EULA should specify what types of
mods are considered unaccaptable (online multiplayer aiming assists,
radar, speed hacks etc.) and shall be considered a violation of the
license.

In the end, it is in the hands of the software authors/publishers to
police their product and ensure cheaters do not adversely affect the
game (in online gameplay), and such efforts cost money. CD key
disabling is a very cheap approach. An EULA including a liquidated
damages clause with potential recovery of attorneys fees is the best
weapon to prevent undesirable modifications or "derivitive works" and
economically insulate the author/publisher from the costs of policing
the products usage.

Just my two cents worth, others may have different opinions.
--
Best regards,
Kyle

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

"Kylesb" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:3321pdF3scdbdU1@individual.net...
> I'm a lawyer, and let me tell you how lawyers see it. Lawyers see the
> way their clients want them to see it. In other words, if the client
> believes a wrong is being perpetrated, the lawyer will take whatever
> legal stance and legal action that supports that perspective.
> Further, lawyers see a legal scenario from many viewpoints, including
> offensive strategies, potential defenses one will face, and the costs
> involved to pursue such litigation.
>
> As to a single user crying foul over a game that does not work due to
> suspected cheating by the end user, the answers are found in the
> license, which typically include terms wherein the license may be
> revoked at the drop of a hat by the licensor.
>
> It is my reaction that disabling CD keys may result in additional
> sales, which in turn is additional revenue. I do not forsee a large
> movement by cheaters (or non-cheaters) against any software company
> for such actions. Instead, there will be outcries of a singular
> nature. The company may easily dispense with such outcries by
> offering refunds or new CD keys, and clearly, a new key is much
> cheaper to dispense.
>
> As to my perspective on the authors of software hacks and/or cheats, a
> few simple clauses in a license can make online multiplayer cheating a
> very expensive proposition for such morally corrupt individuals. For
> example, a liquidated damages clause in the license specifying the end
> user agrees to pay the licensor a fixed amount of money if the
> licensee is shown to have created a derivitive work or version of the
> game that "alters" the basic mechanisms of the game in such a fashion
> as to corrupt the original intent of the game. A $1000 limit on the
> liquidated damages, plus an "award of attorneys fees" clause should
> the cheat author be successfully proven to be the source of the
> altered code would be a scary prospect to face should a morally
> corrupt kid sit down to write some cheat code. Of course, the real
> issue is what is a cheat. Is altering FOV a cheat? I think not, it's
> merely a setting the designers intended the end user might change.
> FOV changes are an exploit, not a cheat. Be careful to understand the
> meaning of "exploit", which is "to make productive use of".
> Competitive online multiplayer ladders should decide whether such
> exploits should be allowed or disallowed. The same can be said for
> shock combos and other scripting features that the game provides
> access to for the end user.
>
> An open design engine such as the UT engine presents a particularly
> difficult challenge to the authors in terms of enjoining undesirable
> modifications since mods are an "encouraged" aspect of the game's
> original design. In this case, the EULA should specify what types of
> mods are considered unaccaptable (online multiplayer aiming assists,
> radar, speed hacks etc.) and shall be considered a violation of the
> license.
>
> In the end, it is in the hands of the software authors/publishers to
> police their product and ensure cheaters do not adversely affect the
> game (in online gameplay), and such efforts cost money. CD key
> disabling is a very cheap approach. An EULA including a liquidated
> damages clause with potential recovery of attorneys fees is the best
> weapon to prevent undesirable modifications or "derivitive works" and
> economically insulate the author/publisher from the costs of policing
> the products usage.
>
> Just my two cents worth, others may have different opinions.
> --
> Best regards,
> Kyle
>

That's one of the more interesting posts I've read in quite a while Kyle.
Now I wonder if there is anything specific in the EULA about cheating? I'll
have to look. I doubt UT99 has something but I wouldn't be surprised if 2K3
does. They had a pretty good idea that cheating was a problem when they were
developing the game (remember how 2K3 was going to be so 'secure'?) so I'd
be interested to know if they addressed the problem specifically.
I'm not really of a different mind than you guys here, so I don't really
want to be devil's advocate. There's a big difference between can and will
on banning CD keys. I'm not at all surprised if they legally can ban a key
for cheating, I just don't think they will to any large degree. It would be
a simple matter to prove a cheater using ASH or a derivative and demorec and
I would probably think that volunteers would come out of the woodwork to
help with policing if Epic so chose that route. It's just not going to
happen. The game manufacturers are around to make money and alienating your
sales base is not how you do that.
Flash, if you are still around, how about your opinion on this? You've been
involved in anti-cheating for a long time. What are your views? Do you think
Epic has done enough or do they just tolerate the problem?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 04:41:11 -0800, "goPostal" <none@this.time> wrote:

>That's one of the more interesting posts I've read in quite a while Kyle.
>Now I wonder if there is anything specific in the EULA about cheating? I'll
>have to look.

UT2004 EULA, Section 5:

5. CHEATING. Nobody likes a cheater. It's a disgraceful way to earn
a win and really is an insult to those players who earn their wins in
on-line games the old-fashioned way—WITH TALENT. We're pretty hard on
cheating in on-line games using the Software because it sullies the
overall gaming experience and is JUST PLAIN LAME. With that in mind
if you are caught cheating in an on-line game using the Software we
will immediately and permanently ban your CD Key. At that point this
License Agreement is automatically terminated and you must immediately
delete this software from your PC. Failure to comply with this last
bit (deleting the software) may bring on the wrath of the lawyers.
Trust us…you don't want that.