Can an online FPS be engineered so players can never wall hack?

[76561197963519852]

Is that possible?

[BJWyler]

redacted a écrit :

BJWyler a écrit :

Encrypting/decrypting and what not simple peer to peer communications is worlds different than doing the same for a live game that has to interpret a ton of different data from moment to moment.




MMOs already are run primarily server side, and it still doesn't prevent cheaters from doing what they do.

At the end of the day, there is no magic bullet to stop cheating in Multiplayer games. If people want to limit their exposure to cheaters, then they need to set up their own private servers and vet each and every person they allow to play on them.

Valve did give us this new "steam group" setting to MM in. Imagine if someone with the marketing resource made a steam group and personally vetted every account that got in... That would be super cool. The logistics behind such an operation would be difficult though and require more than one person for the work load.

Precisely. The workload it would take to make games completely cheater free would be far to costly and cumbersome to be realisticly implemented.

[76561197963519852]

BJWyler a écrit :

redacted a écrit :

Valve did give us this new "steam group" setting to MM in. Imagine if someone with the marketing resource made a steam group and personally vetted every account that got in... That would be super cool. The logistics behind such an operation would be difficult though and require more than one person for the work load.

Precisely. The workload it would take to make games completely cheater free would be far to costly and cumbersome to be realisticly implemented.

I think if I had a $billion dollars I could employ at least a prototype strategy to see if we could make a cheater free environment...

[Cathulhu]

I already told you what would work.
And any decent software developer would tell you for a lot less that securing a software on a PC to not being accessible by other software on the same PC is simply not possible.

[76561197963519852]

Cathulhu a écrit :

I already told you what would work.
And any decent software developer would tell you for a lot less that securing a software on a PC to not being accessible by other software on the same PC is simply not possible.

Is bit coin accessible by other software?

[BJWyler]

redacted a écrit :

BJWyler a écrit :

Precisely. The workload it would take to make games completely cheater free would be far to costly and cumbersome to be realisticly implemented.

I think if I had a $billion dollars I could employ at least a prototype strategy to see if we could make a cheater free environment...

Money is only part of the problem. Money doesn't make the cumbersome part magically disappear. Plus there needs to be a return on investment, otherwise that billion will be gone sooner than you think.

[76561197963519852]

BJWyler a écrit :

redacted a écrit :

I think if I had a $billion dollars I could employ at least a prototype strategy to see if we could make a cheater free environment...

Money is only part of the problem. Money doesn't make the cumbersome part magically disappear. Plus there needs to be a return on investment, otherwise that billion will be gone sooner than you think.

Where is our return? We've been waiting for Valve to make some kind of address about cheating since 2018.

[Tito Shivan]

BJWyler a écrit :

Precisely. The workload it would take to make games completely cheater free would be far to costly and cumbersome to be realisticly implemented.

Which brings up to the core truth of all this subject.

It's all a balancing act

Yo know what they say: "Good, cheap, fast... But you can only pick two" At the end of the day you need to place a point between all those three points, and the closer you place it to one, the further it is from the other two. And the only balanced point doesn't get any of the three at fullest.

Making a multiplayer game is like that. You need to make an accessible game, but you also want it fun, cheater free, profitable... And a lot more things. And if you make your game the most cheater free possible it's probably not going to be very accessible, and probably will impact game mechanics and its fun. Maybe even making it unprofitable.

You can't really make a good, cheap and fast game. You need to give some here to get some there.

redacted a écrit :

I think if I had a $billion dollars I could employ at least a prototype strategy to see if we could make a cheater free environment...

But would your enviroment be avaiable to a majority of users? Will it be accessible for a large ammount of players? Economically viable?

Reality often grants wishes like a monkey paw. It'll give you what you want, but take something you love in exchange.

[76561197963519852]

Tito Shivan a écrit :

BJWyler a écrit :

Precisely. The workload it would take to make games completely cheater free would be far to costly and cumbersome to be realisticly implemented.

Which brings up to the core truth of all this subject.

It's all a balancing act

Yo know what they say: "Good, cheap, fast... But you can only pick two" At the end of the day you need to place a point between all those three points, and the closer you place it to one, the further it is from the other two. And the only balanced point doesn't get any of the three at fullest.

Making a multiplayer game is like that. You need to make an accessible game, but you also want it fun, cheater free, profitable... And a lot more things. And if you make your game the most cheater free possible it's probably not going to be very accessible, and probably will impact game mechanics and its fun. Maybe even making it unprofitable.

You can't really make a good, cheap and fast game. You need to give some here to get some there.

redacted a écrit :

I think if I had a $billion dollars I could employ at least a prototype strategy to see if we could make a cheater free environment...

But would your enviroment be avaiable to a majority of users? Will it be accessible for a large ammount of players? Economically viable?

Reality often grants wishes like a monkey paw. It'll give you what you want, but take something you love in exchange.

If nothing changes, the paradigm shift among clean gamers who feel vulnerable to the bad actors will mean, clean gamers are going to permanently walk away.

Think of how blockbuster failed to acknowledge the demand of streaming. They're gone. Now, Valve is more diversified than blockbuster, but they should acknowledge that as gamers get older and educated, they're not going to play games that are plagued by bad actors.

Not everything Valve originally did was about pure profit. It was about innovation and destroying the competition by addressing the needs of gamers.

If they're going to become a corporate monolith that just keeps releasing broken multiplayer games (look at CS2/WZ/Finals being non-starters with all the cheating) then, what's the point in defending the status quo?

To just hear yourself talk? People are waking up and they're not going to keep gaming if it's nothing but cheaters.

[BJWyler]

redacted a écrit :

Tito Shivan a écrit :

Which brings up to the core truth of all this subject.

It's all a balancing act

Yo know what they say: "Good, cheap, fast... But you can only pick two" At the end of the day you need to place a point between all those three points, and the closer you place it to one, the further it is from the other two. And the only balanced point doesn't get any of the three at fullest.

Making a multiplayer game is like that. You need to make an accessible game, but you also want it fun, cheater free, profitable... And a lot more things. And if you make your game the most cheater free possible it's probably not going to be very accessible, and probably will impact game mechanics and its fun. Maybe even making it unprofitable.

You can't really make a good, cheap and fast game. You need to give some here to get some there.


But would your enviroment be avaiable to a majority of users? Will it be accessible for a large ammount of players? Economically viable?

Reality often grants wishes like a monkey paw. It'll give you what you want, but take something you love in exchange.

If nothing changes, the paradigm shift among clean gamers who feel vulnerable to the bad actors will mean, clean gamers are going to permanently walk away.

Think of how blockbuster failed to acknowledge the demand of streaming. They're gone. Now, Valve is more diversified than blockbuster, but they should acknowledge that as gamers get older and educated, they're not going to play games that are plagued by bad actors.

Not everything Valve originally did was about pure profit. It was about innovation and destroying the competition by addressing the needs of gamers.

If they're going to become a corporate monolith that just keeps releasing broken multiplayer games (look at CS2/WZ/Finals being non-starters with all the cheating) then, what's the point in defending the status quo?

To just hear yourself talk? People are waking up and they're not going to keep gaming if it's nothing but cheaters.

Not every problem can be solved, no matter how much you want a solution. That's simply a fact of human existence.

[[N]ebsun]

redacted a écrit :

Is that possible?

Certainly, but not without impacting gameplay.

One way is for the server to restrict data sent to players based on whether they should be able to see another player or not, for example where any player that is not in line of sight (or should not be seen), the data will not be sent out... but this means the server needs to calculate this each time the data is being updated, and there is a very small delay between where line of sight changes, and the server sends out the updated data for it, and the computations required increase exponentially as number of players increases

[76561197963519852]

BJWyler a écrit :

redacted a écrit :

If nothing changes, the paradigm shift among clean gamers who feel vulnerable to the bad actors will mean, clean gamers are going to permanently walk away.

Think of how blockbuster failed to acknowledge the demand of streaming. They're gone. Now, Valve is more diversified than blockbuster, but they should acknowledge that as gamers get older and educated, they're not going to play games that are plagued by bad actors.

Not everything Valve originally did was about pure profit. It was about innovation and destroying the competition by addressing the needs of gamers.

If they're going to become a corporate monolith that just keeps releasing broken multiplayer games (look at CS2/WZ/Finals being non-starters with all the cheating) then, what's the point in defending the status quo?

To just hear yourself talk? People are waking up and they're not going to keep gaming if it's nothing but cheaters.

Not every problem can be solved, no matter how much you want a solution. That's simply a fact of human existence.

We put humans on the moon in the 1960's with computers that a TI83 can run circles around.

I think you lack imagination.

[76561197963519852]

Nebsun a écrit :

redacted a écrit :

Is that possible?

Certainly, but not without impacting gameplay.

One way is for the server to restrict data sent to players based on whether they should be able to see another player or not, for example where any player that is not in line of sight (or should not be seen), the data will not be sent out... but this means the server needs to calculate this each time the data is being updated, and there is a very small delay between where line of sight changes, and the server sends out the updated data for it

Hmm, see, if they released a new game with different mechanics that slowed down some of the movement, maybe this would be possible. I understand it might lower certain mechanic-based skill ceilings, but if it meant I could play without the possibility of losing to a cheater, I'd do it.

Doesn't have to be R6 levels of cement-foot, but obviously, a balance I think could be found.

[BJWyler]

redacted a écrit :

BJWyler a écrit :

Not every problem can be solved, no matter how much you want a solution. That's simply a fact of human existence.

We put humans on the moon in the 1960's with computers that a TI83 can run circles around.

I think you lack imagination.

Have we solved world hunger?
Have we achieved World Peace?
Have we conquered global warming?
Have we even been able to put a stop to simple shoplifting.

Imagination has nothing to do with it.

[76561197963519852]

BJWyler a écrit :

redacted a écrit :

We put humans on the moon in the 1960's with computers that a TI83 can run circles around.

I think you lack imagination.

Have we solved world hunger?
Have we achieved World Peace?
Have we conquered global warming?
Have we even been able to put a stop to simple shoplifting.

Imagination has nothing to do with it.

You're defeated and have nothing to more to offer this conversation besides negativity. I gently ask you to leave the thread.

[Pierce Dalton]

No, you know what they say, where there's a will, there's a way. People will always find a way sooner or later.