[Cloudef]

It's getting more and more ridiculous like controlling what software your computer can have installed. Pretty sure some even require TPM and that you are booting into a "trusted environment". The only one who suffers is the genuine gamer as cheaters find their way around, either by directly reading and writing from/to the RAM chip directly or using another PC running machine vision and feeding inputs as a emulated USB hid devices.

I don't think cheating is something that can be solved by a technology in FPS games, you can do some server side checks but it gets really difficult unless you stream the whole game as a video feed from a remote server. Cheating is a social issue, and we had working solution for it.. dedicated community servers which were community moderated.

[ryandrake]

It's ridiculous that gamers are willing to accept installing a rootkit in order to play a game. And it's ridiculous that they even defend the practice by crying about cheaters. And it's ridiculous that game developers reach for rootkits instead of securing their own games better against cheating and/or designing their games in such a way that computer-assistance gives no benefit. It's just ridiculous all the way down.

[NoPicklez]

It's ridiculous that you think developers aren't doing other things apart from kernel level anti-cheat to secure their games. There has been an enormous amount of engineering around combatting cheaters.

Why doesn't Microsoft just build a more secure operating system than reaching for Microsoft Defender and other kernel level protection mechanisms. Well because they are but they're not good enough which is exactly the point.

Gamers who use their PC to play games, will install what they can to play such games its a simple as that. Not everyone has the same tolerance to risk.

[add-sub-mul-div]

> designing their games in such a way that computer-assistance gives no benefit.

Come on man, think this one through a little better.

[xeonmc]

Have you ever played Rocket League?

[booi]

Hold up, there is cheating tech that uses machine vision and hid inputs?!

That’s hardcore. Sad they couldn’t put that talent to something like self driving…

[m3galinux]

Oh that's just the start of it. I recently learned there are cheating methods that use sniffing and live modification of system RAM via PCI Express DMA transfers. As usual, physical access to hardware trumps all.

[pushedx]

This is an excellent mini documentary explaining the various techniques to avoid kernel level anti-cheat, including pre-boot EFI-based cheats, PCIe DMA sniffing, video over serial auto clickers, and the state of the art motion detection over streaming video with MITM USB host controller.

https://youtu.be/RwzIq04vd0M

[newzisforsukas]

I wonder how useful injecting subperceptual noise is in combating the CV approach

[pushedx]

Likely ineffective as the techniques involve compression of the input data and general purpose motion detection.

[wlesieutre]

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2021/07/cheat-maker-brags-of-...

[Der_Einzige]

Yup. AI hacks are now the norm. They’re Pretty much undetectable too. I use aimmy for shooters, which amusingly claims it’s an accessibility app for the physically disabled.

https://github.com/Babyhamsta/Aimmy

I love it because suddenly I can actually compete with the sweatlords who spend every waking moment optimizing their play. I don’t have time for that shit, but I want to have fun.

Downvote away, but game cheating is subversive in the best way possible, and the haters can simply deal with it. I think it’s straight up good for society as it encourages a technological race to the top from others who want to stay competitive. There’s more value in learning how to cheat in a game with respect to learning about computers than there is in playing legitimately. Time spent getting good at a random video game is simply a waste of our precious limited lifespans.

I argue we should legalize doping in sports too. Daniel tosh argued for this famously, pointing out that a bunch of roided beefcakes playing sports is far more entertaining for the average viewer since it improves the quality of play.

[pseudo0]

> Aimmy was designed for Gamers who are at a severe disadvantage over normal gamers.

> This includes but is not limited to:

> - Gamers who are mentally challenged

Hope it was worth your dignity.

Seriously though, the whole point of ranked matchmaking is to give you a fair game with people who are similar in skill. If you compete without cheating, you will get matched up with other casual players instead of "sweatlords".

[Der_Einzige]

I hope every person who’s a victim of my AI hacks reacts at least as poorly as you do. The salt, rage, anger, etc of gamers is the funniest stuff ever.

A major streamer, pchooly, is known for extreme gamer rage. https://youtu.be/h2ZZh3s2OPA?feature=shared

I like to think that I’ve caused similar poor reactions from upset players.

[pseudo0]

What, with mild sarcasm? The description of the tool is hilarious.

I just legitimately don't see the appeal. I installed a CoD aimbot way back when, and it just ruined the experience. There is no challenge or satisfaction in winning when it's the tool doing all the work.

[vicluz]

Cheaters in online competitive games will always be a huge laughing stock for me. Can you imagine being so silly to go and cheat on a game? Ha!

I used to play a couple of specific competitive games and get the occasional cheater. It was always a riot to run circles around these people and turn their cheats against them. We had ways of both making the player know that we knew they were cheating and ruin their game, sometimes for hours. I went out of my way to hold these players captive with me so they could not go ruin a new player experience. A service to the gaming society, you see. The more upset and irritated the better. I didn't have to win, I just had to prevent them from winning. It was such fun. Still have a bunch of hatemail from these people and cherish every bit of it. If I didn't get hatemail, I wasn't doing it right.

I really miss those days.

[luluthefirst]

Why not play and cheat in solo games if you are bad at multiplayer? Only having fun when others are not is a bit disturbing. You could create an AI to help you beat Dark Souls or something, then you would respect both computer learning and human beings...

[newdee]

Would you be ok with only being matched with other cheaters in your games? If not, why?

[Der_Einzige]

It’s up to the game devs to do whatever they want. It’s up to me to figure out how to subvert their intentions.

It doesn’t matter about what I am “okay with”, what matters is my power and my capabilities. See the philosophy of max stirner for a deeper explanation.

So I will do what I can to be a game cheater without being detected so that I preserve my advantage and don’t get lumped with other cheaters.

[newdee]

So you’re no different to anyone else who cheats at anything. You’ve come up with this whole philosophy and self aggrandising narrative about why you do what you do. But really you’re likely just covering for some weakness or feelings of impotence that are arising from elsewhere in your life and this is how you cope. Unless of course you’re doing it for monetary gain, but I haven’t seen that in your boasts so far.

If you’re really powerful, dominate people on a level playing field. I’m thinking you can’t and you’re too weak of mind, will or ability to do so.

[drdaeman]

> Cheating is a social issue

This is very true.

Highly unpopular opinion: cheating is a social issue and the only future-proof long-term solution is… acceptance and adaptation.

Technology is here to stay. A machine will always outperform unaided humans at some tasks. Don’t make that the point of the competition. The genie is out of the bottle, and save for an apocalyptic event, it won’t ever go back.

Do the contrary. Give every player a state-of-art machine copilot, and let them bring their own improvements to it. This is the only way to make the field truly level again. If your game mechanics is ruined… I’m sorry, but then that - probably - wasn’t a sustainable idea.

People who are called “cheaters” are different. Some exploit bugs and just want to watch the world burn - no sympathy for those folks, fuck them. Some want to trample on everyone without doing anything - no competition here, I don’t get those people (can’t say “fuck them” though - maybe it’s some kind of a trauma they have, so they need that feeling of fake “victory”?). But some want to win, but feel that cannot do so with their bare hands and eyes. So they do what humanity always did - improve by using technology. If they genuinely want to become better - how about we just don’t hate them for this? Heck, the desire to improve through tech is the very foundation of this civilization. (Yes, even if one just buys a cheat program - it still makes sense in any society that had invented money.)

Just rank such players accordingly to their machine-assisted skill. Here, problem solved, and as a bonus you’ll get your next OpenAI Five paper in no time.

I know it’s very controversial. I know some game genres won’t survive (not complex games like LoL or Dota, though). Most likely a lot of MMOs (and most mobile casino junk) will suffer, as a lot of their mechanics is based on boring grind (that’s how they earn money, hah). I know the industry is doing the exact opposite, trying to shove the issue under the rug with bans and memeing super hard that “cheaters” (a derogatory term) are vile scum. And I can see why people are buying it - if the developers say it’s against the rules, no surprise a slightest trace of automation (like a programmable mouse) feels unfair. Reading some Reddit threads I sometimes wonder how those people don’t say that wearing glasses is cheating too. I see that as a conservative approach, and - as anything that merely tries to uphold the status quo - I honestly believe it’s not gonna work in the long term.

No trolling, I honestly believe in what I wrote. And, no, I don’t “cheat” (although I’ve experimented with some basic game hacking, of course - because reverse engineering is fun)

And, uh, yes, I think the same should apply to non-e-sports. The logic is a bit different, of course. But the value of medical breakthroughs drastically overweights the fictional “purity” in my perception of values. I don’t really care if some athlete can do something (doubly so because I don’t have a nationality I can root for; personal achievements are cool but there’s zero benefit for me or society besides the economic value of the competition event), but if some athlete can do twice as much because of some tech (drug or implant), that may be beneficial for me as well. And yes, I’ve seen that standup/meme about dope Olympics - it’s fun but it doesn’t really invalidate my views.

[NoPicklez]

This is a very far fetched tin foil kind of response here

If I am playing a game with other humans and one of those humans doesn't feel like improving or cannot stand being beaten and decides to use technology that is not allowed to win at the expense of others. That's not a game people are going to want to play.

There is room for people that want to experiment with cheating and using technology in game to aid themselves and that's in a completely separate game that encourages that behavior.

If they genuinely want to become better, they need to apply concepts that allow them to improve which is training what you're not good at and accepting you won't always or ever be the best. Not using an aid that goes against the rules of the game and gives them an unfair advantage.

It's a similar principle I would apply from the world of sport and doping. Just because it might be partially a social problem, the solution isn't just to let it happen.

[drdaeman]

It’s not about not being able to stand being beaten and not being the best. I’m truly sorry that a lot of people who cheat are also toxic.

I’m not advocating for unfairness by just letting people use automation to trample upon those who don’t. Like I’ve said, a machine will always win an unaided human in some tasks - so there is no competition here. Rather, I propose to accept automation and start giving it to everyone, so games will be fair for everyone. If some mechanic relies on imperfect mechanical skills - that’s a bad mechanics that never will be fair despite any wishes to make it so.

Technology is the greatest equalizer. Don’t automatically blindly hate people who want to make bots or copilots. That was the whole point.

[NoPicklez]

Firstly, the decision needs to be made whether we allow people to use automation and these games have already said no, which is the agreed upon consensus for players. We don't want to allow cheats or people to automate their gameplay.

We want the developers to provide the constraints so that there is a fair playground, they do this via the game mechanics and preventing outside automation. We just want to play games using the mechanics provided to us, we don't want to focus on building automation to outsmart the competition, we want to outsmart the competition by being a better player when everything is considered equal.

I am automatically against people who make bots or copilots in games that explicitly say you can't use them, in games where the players don't want them and don't want to up against them. That is the whole point.

These anti-cheat solutions are combatting people making or using copilots in games where people don't want them and where the rules say you can't use them. That is the whole point.

[add-sub-mul-div]

So all competitive action games (for example) should go away and be replaced by competitive coding or scripting of action-game-playing bots?

I'm hearing that cheating is a social issue and we're dumb for using technology to address it. But the social need to compete, here's a whole masturbatory fantasy of how coding is the last battlefield we'll ever need for that. The cunning and slandered cheaters have shown us a better way.

Let's rewrite the whole activity of gaming so that people who are bad at aiming guns but do know how to install a script can get a trophy.

[drdaeman]

Your comment was dead for some reason. I’ve vouched for it.

I believe that games that are purely competition of reflexes are inherently unfair. Bots are merely exposing this unfairness because they can reliably beat all kind of animals, but it exists in humans as well.

But here’s the thing - I don’t understand cheating in this kind of games (besides people being willingly toxic). It’s no fun at all, you just win and that’s it. There is zero competition. So, yea, you’re right it doesn’t make sense to give bot copilots in such games. Their time will come to an end when humans will learn to enhance their reflexes, until they they’ll be probably the last kind of games to keep the “no bots” flame alive.

Please notice a difference between toxic people who want to trump everyone, and normal people who want to improve their lives by using technology because they have skills for that (money is a tricky thing - I need to think about it more). Today they’re all pushed into the same ostracized group, called “cheaters”.

> Let’s rewrite the whole activity of gaming

Yes - why not rewrite? Humanity had rewritten various principles quite a number of times, and continues to do so. The time for games will come soon (not exactly yet, but it’s rapidly approaching and we can see the first signs).

A bot is just a machine (we don’t have GAI and it’s still an unanswered question if we will anytime soon). If the game is truly complex in a good way (LoL surely is not too bad in this regard) - it won’t auto-win it for a human, it will merely remove the routine and grind, exposing the true mechanics, exposing the ultimate meta.

[Cloudef]

The thing with community curated servers is that there very well can be a server which encourages cheating. And I'm not opposed to giving cheaters a place to be in. Even some games that do not have community servers, do not actually ban the cheaters but instead move them to their own server where they will be playing with other cheaters.