Instalar Steam
iniciar sesión
|
idioma
简体中文 (chino simplificado)
繁體中文 (chino tradicional)
日本語 (japonés)
한국어 (coreano)
ไทย (tailandés)
Български (búlgaro)
Čeština (checo)
Dansk (danés)
Deutsch (alemán)
English (inglés)
Español de Hispanoamérica
Ελληνικά (griego)
Français (francés)
Italiano
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesio)
Magyar (húngaro)
Nederlands (holandés)
Norsk (noruego)
Polski (polaco)
Português (Portugués de Portugal)
Português-Brasil (portugués de Brasil)
Română (rumano)
Русский (ruso)
Suomi (finés)
Svenska (sueco)
Türkçe (turco)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamita)
Українська (ucraniano)
Comunicar un error de traducción
Este tema ha sido cerrado 
Normas y directrices sobre discusión
Denunciar este mensaje
I have played five matches with five planes each mostly Tier 1 planes in AB mode. During each battle at least one of my planes was shot down because the pilot was killed. This always happend with the first burst hitting my plane from different angles, even my bomber pilot was host from an angle somewhere behind my plane.
Except for two planes all others have been critically damaged with the first burst hitting them and there was nothing else to do but wait until they crashed just seconds later.
In course of those matches I chased other player with the two planes that haven't been one-burst-shotted and I got several hit indications (cross-hair flashing) a few recorded hits and one or two crits on the targeted plane. But they didn't really care and let me chase them until I was shot down by another player and they just kept flying.
In all other battles I have played so far I experienced a K/D ratio and plane damages like I would expect based on my piloting skills and when fighting flying tanks. But this particular day made me quit playing and made me think something is very wrong.
About the possibility of hacking...
I don't know if there are any hacks around and actually I don't care unless it affects my game experience. Nevertheless it would be possible but they have to be more advanced than existing FPS bots because of delayed movement and necessary target prediction. The server side calculation as argument against bots is not valid since only the targeting is automated but not the hit detection which should be sufficient to have an advantage.
As already mentioned. the client knows all required information or can be easily calculated. Otherwise there wouldn't be any red-dots or event planes flying around.
Thanks to the layered architecture of computers where the program don't actually know if there is a mouse or keyboard attached but trust on information provided by OS (Hardware Abstraction Layer). So it is definitely possible to automate player controls and the WT client would not even be aware of it. If it's possible to simulate mouse movement in FPS why shouldn't it be possible in a flight simulation game, the movement just takes more time.
First of all comparing the Navy's anti-missile/anti-aircraft PHALANX system to a aim bot is... a bit of a stretch, don't you think?
Secondly, it's not about the computers ability to perform the calculations, it's about how fundamentally different a working aimbot would be for this game, then any aimbot that works for an FPS game.
Aimbot's in FPS games work off of tracking hitboxes. They don't work off of calculating where those hitboxes are going to be, they simply track them and snap to them.
The hacking program would have to:
1. Take your planes speed, calculate where you are going to be, at any given moment.
2. Take your oponents speed, calculate where it is, and where its going to be, from anywhere from 0.1 seconds to 5-7 seconds, on the fly.
3. Coupled with this, it would also have to take into account your angle of attack.
4. Then, all of this would have to be translated by the speed of your projectile, which is different for every weapon system.
Now on top of all of this, what happens when the opponent simply out flies you and say, causes you to stall? If you can't get your plane can't even actually put the nose and the guns pointing at the right place at the right time, how is the aimbot even going to hit its predicted targets?
Are you starting to see how difficult of a task this would be to actually make it work with any sort of efficiency?
A program is never going to be able to do all of that perfectly, for every target, like a human with 100's of hours of experience in a certain aircraft.
I, and a few of my old-hat veteran players whom I fly with, have been accused of being hackers, by people who, in their inexperience, have absolutely been convinced that we couldn't hit certain snap shots, with very little time on target. Now that may not be really an example of anything, but I hope you see what I'm trying to say.
Aimbotting, among other things that plague FPS games, is not something you have to be worried about here. It's really not present at all.
And yeah, from what I remember, yes, bomb bays w/ bombs loaded I believe do have a chance of detonation.
However, there are other parts of the plane that, if critically hit, can also cause planet detonation, depending on the shell that hits.
For example, oil resevoir criticals. German 30mm cannons, if they get an oil crit, will instantly detonate the enemy aircraft.
No. We were discussing your initial claim that computers are not capable of performing such calculations as well as a human mind. Which is utter nonsense, as much as you may not like the word. I provided examples of development in that area specifically based on exactly the contrary assertion, that automated systems are superior for such tasks.
Your words, not mine. I gave an example of a computerized system from 1979 perfectly capable of it. Certainly more so than any human could, else it wouldn't be a semi-autonomous system.
Computers became somewhat more powerful since then. You retracted that claim below after my response.
It's fundamentally exactly the same as for any FPS. You have a set of coordinates you attempt to hit, and need the calculations to do so. Every single variable needed for War Thunder is present in any FPS where you take shots at long range - heading, bearing, speed, deflection.
That the specific implementation requires some adjustments to particularities of the in-game performance of targets is not that great of a difference. Fundamentally speaking.
Sloth, aimbots work however you code them. Which, given the in-depth analysis you provide, you damn well know. You gave the "lazy" example, knowing damn well there's nothing preventing somebody of sufficient skill to knock out a more capable one rather fast, if so inclined.
Incidentally, you are aware that the CLIENT already does these calculations (not with superb capacity, but it does), right? It's called "arcade leading indicator". You can seriously simplify any aimbot using that as a starting point.
I don't expect you to come out and confirm the possibility, given Gaijin's head-in-the-sand stance, but if you're going to argue your point please don't do it assuming I'm clueless about the subject.
And that's difficult? You'd only need some trial-and-error to figure out approximate values to 4, and even then you could automate this until your code "solves" the last variable.
Aside from that, your client has all the information required. Implementing these formulas is on level of Coding 101, ffs. For somebody not really "into" coding. I was churning out chemical reaction simulations in second grade of high school, and I'm by no means some brilliant Steven Hawking of programming.
A very specific example does not invalidate the capacity of the overall system to perform.
It's not like adding conditional clause for the auto-correction preventing maneouvering into a stall would be THAT difficult, either.
No, I'm starting to see why people take your replies with a grain of salt, to say the least. Your comments in this specific instance are either heavily misinformed, or purposefully obfuscating the reality of the issue.
What. The. ♥♥♥♥?
This is why modern aerospace vehicles don't have on-board computers to unburden human pilots whose performance is so ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ excellent for computational-heavy tasks, I bet!
Oh, wait, what?[www.history.nasa.gov]
1950 tech there. Seriously, man.
If you read my previous post, you'd notice what I wrote here:
We are not discussing accusations levied against players, we are discussing technological possibility of a working aimbot for War Thunder. Which is pretty much damn guaranteed to exist sooner or later. Especially with the 1.37 grind, as it'll attract organized "farming" outfits to second-hand sell fully unlocked accounts to cretin kiddos clueless about identitiy fraud and the like.
All right, party line stance acknowledged. Like I said, I do understand Gaijin's vehement denial from business perspective, I just think it's a rather underhanded way to maintain credibility with customers. Especially since this isn't an issue in some esoteric field that a decent CS college student wouldn't know a thing or two about.
Edit: Minor clarification additions.
But dont worry cause cheaters are small ♥♥♥♥♥ in real life, they win in game but they are losers in real life and thats why they are cheating. And real life is more important.
So sheep, you seem to be taking this pretty seriously, and you seem to have made it your obligattorry agenda to somehow prove that this game can be hacked, or is rife with hackers. The later is probably true. Technically, it is probabably possible. However, it's just not an occurance that really happens in this game, and I'll explain why.
Also, I'm going to ask you again to stop comparing aim bots to real world technological feats of engineering. It is neither adding anything to the discussion, nor is it pertinent. Not only was one purpose built to engage moving targets, but the other, the 1950's moon landing technology, doesn't, and didn't, have to deal with literally any second-to-second variations. The moon and earths motions don't just start doing new and unexpected things all of a sudden, but I'm digressing. This conversation is supposed to be about the game.
Like I said before, I'm not arguing whether or not it can be done, but whether or not it IS being done.
You're saying, "Well all of that stuff is easy to particulate and change how a Aim bot works" but where is the draw to do so? AKA the money. That would require a hefty bit of coding, I don't care what software design school or software engineering experience you have. I have YET to see an aimbot, in ANY video game, that tracks fast moving targets when their is bullet speed involved. You'd think someone could of figured this out in the 10+ years of the Battlefield series games being out, with bullet drop and bullet velocities involved, but I have yet to see an example of one.
Also about the lead indicator: Sure, they could piggy back off of that, but it would be just as inaccurate as before. I can't count the number of times I've had to shoot WELL in front of that lead indicator to hit my target, due to them being at certain speeds or attitudes.
And about my statement that a hacker is never going to be as good as the person with 300+ hours of flight time that they are fighting, just comes down to an observation on the type of person who is most likely to be imploying the hacks vs the person who isn't.
The person who is, obviously couldn't do the things he wanted to do without them. I think we can safely say, that anyone who is going out and attempting to use hacks, in any game, are mediocre players 99% of the time.
Not only this, but their entire focus is going to be on getting their guns where the aimbot tells them to. What happens when the 300+ hour guy simply doesn't let that happen through maneuvers? That aimbot is not going to magically move the plane where it needs to go. That guy with 300+ hours is going to wipe the sky with the aimbotter, because the aimbotter probably doesn't know what to do with his aircraft in the first place.
Someone who would put that time and effort to actually know how to maneuver the aircraft correctly TO shoot someone, wouldn't then need a 3rd party program to make the shot.
All of this adds up to a situation where it's not really conducive to go out and try to make really good working hacks. This game isn't played by a ton of people, and probably even less people willing to actually pay money for 3rd person hacks. Not only that, but categorically, whenever a game is updated, the current hacks out usually stop working most of the time.
So in other words add all that together, and ask yourself: "Do you honestly think it's an actual, realized problem in this game, compared to any other game on the market?"
That, and no offense, sheep, but your opinion that this "has to be happening, and it is happening" doesn't really hold a lot of water to me.
I've played this game for 400+ hours.
I have yet to see someone make a shot on me that I could not have made myself.
I have never asked myself "how did he make that shot? That was ridiculous.".
These are all things I have asked myself in literally every other game I have played. Ever.
But of course, let me guess: None of that is valid, because "I'm the companies go-to-head-in-the-sand guy.".
Great straw men argument there, by the way. Always love them. Really shows how confidant someone is in the other parts of their message, if you know what I mean.
I don't like lies. Claiming that server-side calculations completely prevent hacking is a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Technically, it's a given. Practically, it's merely a question of motivation. Hence my response to official Gaijin statement, pointing out the fallacy in arguments presented there.
I was attempting to debunk your claim of it being technologically impossible or improbable citing examples from stone age history. Technologically speaking.
There are games running nowadays that'd put any target acquisition system from even the early 80s to utter shame using only fraction of the resources available to them. The complexity of calculations capable of being performed nowadays is sufficient to crack industrial-grade encryption.
You WERE arguing that it cannot be done.
Pwning n00bs. Lulz. Insecure personality. Take a pick. Why do people hack games in general? There's your answer.
Also:
There are people who have the money and personality to buy a fully unlocked and maxed account. Especially with the 1.37 grind. Organized "farming" is a huge business (not speaking of War Thunder here specifically).
You are seriously exagerrating the difficulty of it.
Then you weren't looking. I remember a player loging onto our Battlefield 2 server and using pinpoint accuracy with Apache minigun against far-distance fighters. As in, his tracers NEVER went off-target.
Got vetted by two admins, banned. This was back in... 2010 or something.
Then we had a guy on a rooftop nailing people at over 1k with machine gun while standing up. Some of them were in sand buggies.
But now we're going into anecdotal "evidence" instead of discussing technological capacity.
Even assuming nobody could refine the calculations (heh...), it's still a working aimbot outside of some boundary conditions. Theoretical one, but that's what I was discussing.
He will have at least similar, if not better, target acquisition "skills." Will he fly better? Hell no.
Also, comparing the skillset of a select elite of players as representative of general public is ridiculous.
Agreed. Doesn't change the fact that somebody using outside "help" to nail you on the fly-by is going to affect the enjoyment of the game for most players.
And yet he will proceed to wipe the ground with Joe McRegular. Anyway, the point was discussing whether hacks are a possibility.
As somebody with experience as admin in some extremely competitive games, this often does not hold true. Human nature being what it is.
Occam's razor. Again, I'm not claiming that hacks exist for War Thunder (though didn't you mention how crappy an aimbot you saw was? Sorry, that was somebody else. My bad). I was questioning the assertion of the official statement that server-side calculation prevent hacking that gives somebody unfair advantage.
What's anecdotal evidence to do with discussion of technological feasibility?
I explained my take on your statements in details in above responses.
Really not sure what you want to imply here. Frankly, not much inclined to analyze this.
We began this discussion by your claim that aimbots were not possible as a reply to my comment on misleading, at best, claim in the official statement. This then changed to your claiming that they are difficult to implement. Now it seems the argument is that there is no empirical evidence of their existence in War Thunder and/or I'm a poor player who needs the excuse of "aimbotz OMG!" to rationalize my in-game performance.
Meh.
I never said aimbotting was impossible. Here is what I actually said:
"1. Hitscan, client-based aim-bot's are basically irrelevant. They work based on tracking hit boxes, and any attempt to try to determine the correct ranging would have to be running advanced trig. equations on a per 10th of a second basis, at least to get that. It can't do that sort of thing as efficiently as a human being."
I'm not having a discussion about if current tech can actually do those equations, or be able to actually track things with that efficiency.
I'm having a discussion about whether CURRENT aim bots that are being used can actually do that. I have yet to see ANY evidence, at all, that they can. I've only heard that contemporary technology can.
I don't believe, in any part of that statement, I said it was impossible.
Irrelevant does not equal impossible.
It's surely possible.
I have just yet to see an example of it, in all my time of playing.
And yeah, that's good enough for me to make the judgement that War Thunder, as a whole, is not dealing with a hacking problem, in anywhere near the veracity of any other game that I have played.
"Client side hacks do not affect mutiplayer"
Yeah, then I gave you some extensive reasons why I call bull on the whole "as efficiently as human being" part.
You, Sir, most certainly were. ♥♥♥♥, you just quoted yourself above doing that.
I don't know what current aim bots can and cannot do. I don't use them, I don't study them. I have some anecdotal evidence from years back, and technological knowledge supporting the claim that they certainly can do all of the above if somebody competent develops them.
So you're saying that the youtube hack vid that shows position of enemies is irrelevant in a game where manouvering into good position to engage enemy is core gameplay at higher "realism" levels?
Hey, maybe that's even a fake. My experience with programming suggests that something like that would be very, very easy to implement.
This is not what I was discussing:
Having enemies indicated before they are in view range is not affecting multiplayer? Having the rather easily implemented lead indicator is not affecting multiplayer?
This quote does not deal with current situation, it attempts to present technological impossibility of gaining advantage from client-side hacks.
I found it disingenious, at best. I posted my commentary. We started verbally duking it out. The rest is documented in the pages above.
Edit: By the way.
You only need to tell me to drop it for this exchange to end. Or simply stop replying.
Using arguments I find flawed will elicit a response. I'm argumentative. But I will try to explain why I consider such things fallacious.
So, with that in mind; why would someone go to the trouble of coding such a thing when a single, formal report to Gaijin (as in one submitted through the proper channels with links and other evidence showing it in-action) will get it squashed and rendered useless in about a patch or two, or a lot faster with a single hotfix? If it's the one that points the plane for you; it would be incredibly complex and take god-knows how long to make. If it's just the more accurate lead indicator; it's not reliable enough for the people who'd want an aimbot to bother with.
Assuming it wouldn't rely on player control to get crosshair within "operational distance" and do only minute adjustments to ensure on-target fire. Given the short time window you have for that while engaging a target in general furball it alone would be a huge advantage.
We're not discussing fully autonomous autopilots. Just to make this part clear.
Gaijin claims that it
Are you saying that a more accurate lead indicator would not affect multiplayer gameplay?
How are you going to hotfix something that requires a constant scanning of resident memory to detect using specifically targetting algos? Punkbuster couldn't deal with some of the hacks in Battlefield 2 for months, despite numerous reports. Moreover, how are you going to distinguish that report from constant stream of people upset over somebody's skill reporting them as hackers (which, from personal admin experience, I rather doubt Gaijin is NOT dealing with on daily basis)?
A reasonably well performing aimbot would require knowledge of its implementation to even make the distinction between somebody using it and being simply very skilled. Even if some randomization factor was not introduced on purpose to decrease chance of detection, I doubt you'd get an implementation that took under consideration every single aspect affecting the flight models. Such as aircraft energy retention of a particular airplane model. It would cause some shots to miss, but only under specific circumstances. Not to mention that the divergence, even at medium distance, would likely not be enough to avoid inflicting damage on the suboptimal target parts of the enemy, anyway.
Full on auto-pilot? Certainly. Something performing within a set of pre-defined parameters? Not really.
Besides,
It's still an advantage that I guarantee you a lot of people would happily use just to improve their KtD ratio. Unless you claim some expert knowledge as to the degree of sophistication required to use cheats in a competitive game. I don't. All I know is that some people will go out of their way to cheat, especially if they think they can get away with it. Often employing "hacks" from such august sources as somebody with a dubious web site advertising how you'd be able to pwn n00bs with just a single easy payment of $19.99.
And, again, I'd like to point out that this is very much something that'd very much affect multiplayer gameplay, contrary to what Gaijin stated. Which is why I was so adamant about the official statement being factually inaccurate.
Cheers.