DELETED

[Vivi22]

we take this mentality beyond simply excluding players who make the game unfun or unfair to excluding players who potentially make the game unfair. Anyone who dares explore a games system now is just as likely to get pegged by VAC as someone who actively cheats to ruin a game. The process makes no differentiation between someone who was curious as to what happened when the rules changed and someone who didn't want to play by the rules. There is no warning system, there isn't a possibility for the forgiveness of honest mistakes. Instead, all of that potential to learn from a game that you love is tossed aside to facilitate the consumer product.

Yeah, I think that requires some citation on your part because nothing I've ever read about the way VAC works would corroborate anything you've said about it in this post.

The premise was true. Under most circumstances, one has to enable VAC on their server.

I have provided proof to the contrary. If you wish to argue only on your own opinion that's fine, but it still is just your opinion.

You haven't cited a single source in any of your posts. You have done nothing but make statements and provided no evidence to back them up. You've literally proven nothing here and that you claim otherwise leads me to believe you don't even understand what proof is.

That you haven't provided any support for your assertions other than "it's true because I say so," means that nothing you've argued holds any weight so far and should be summarily ignored. Provide sources to back up your claims or stop making them, because if you can't support them then everything you say as far as how VAC works isn't worth the time it takes to read it, let alone respond to it.

 

[Lunar Templar]

There's nothing sad about. This is what should happen to cheaters in online competitive games. Pro or not, no exceptions, no excuses, you cheat, your gone..

 

[Irick]

we take this mentality beyond simply excluding players who make the game unfun or unfair to excluding players who potentially make the game unfair. Anyone who dares explore a games system now is just as likely to get pegged by VAC as someone who actively cheats to ruin a game. The process makes no differentiation between someone who was curious as to what happened when the rules changed and someone who didn't want to play by the rules. There is no warning system, there isn't a possibility for the forgiveness of honest mistakes. Instead, all of that potential to learn from a game that you love is tossed aside to facilitate the consumer product.

Yeah, I think that requires some citation on your part because nothing I've ever read about the way VAC works would corroborate anything you've said about it in this post.

Very well:
In Alen Turing's landmark paper in computer science[footnote]http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/Turing_Paper_1936.pdf[/footnote] he lays out the fundimental logical design still used today to describe the interaction of programatic logic. Within this paper he lays out the fundamental design of these machines as a ticker tape divided into arbitrary cells marked with a binary filled or unfilled value (1/0). A program is specifically formatted into a 'card' that describes the actions to take when various states (1/0) are encountered. This is why you may hear the term "state machine" so frequently referenced in Computer Science issues.

For this machine, the cards are programs and the strip of tape is data. For a modern machine data has a wide variety of sources but the machine treats it all like a multi-bit turing machine (modernly, this would be best represented with 64 tapes). Because all data are thus considered as a set, we can turn the Set theory to explain the principle problem and challenges of creating an intent-prediction artificial intelligence. For this, we turn to the study around Incomplete Information Systems, specifically if we can determine binary (true false/black white) sets. The answer is of course, no. That's why we call these incomplete systems[footnote]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_information[/footnote].

So, what can we expect to get from an incomplete information system? Well, the best you can hope for is a Rough Set[footnote]http://l1.lamsade.dauphine.fr/~tsoukias/papers/jaljap13.pdf[/footnote]. Now, you might ask, what is a Rough Set? This is a good question. A Rough Set is an approximation of an unknown complete set's upper and lower bounds[footnote]http://cdn.intechweb.org/pdfs/5939.pdf[/footnote]. In this case the set would be a Fuzzy set[footnote]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_set[/footnote]. Now, here we see my principal objection. A Fuzzy set can never, ever, ever, ever, ever (ad infinitum) produce the crisp set it is approximating using math. We can arive at a crip decision[footnote]http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0888613X09001078[/footnote] but only for moves for wich better than no information has been provided. Which is not, nor can ever be the case with the inputs of a mouse and keyboard (or a programmatically generated approximation) when determining the intent of an action. (This is even difficult to do perfectly when the program and the user have a fundamentally agreed upon system of information symbols, such as in the case when you swear back and forth you blocked that sword strike.)

In short, there is no existent method that could ever be programmatically devised to deduce the intent that gave rise to the fuzzy threshold required for VAC to activate and flag a user. Which is my fundamental problem with the system and systems like it. This is impounded further by Valve's Zero tolerance policy because a Zero Tolerance policy inherently disallows fuzzy states and it needlessly increases the stake of the move.

The stakes which it presents are steep enough for me to claim that they will negatively impact the motivation of curious users to explore (which I have demonstrated with valid logic based on the default states of VAC and the concepts in game design that 'Cheating'(e.g. changing the challenge values to compensate for skill) allows one to explore). The only assumption that I have made is that every actor will act in their own rational self-interest and that getting VAC banned has a real(as in existant) opportunity cost.

 

[MHR]

In short, there is no existent method that could ever be programmatically devised to deduce the intent that gave rise to the fuzzy threshold required for VAC to activate and flag a user. Which is my fundamental problem with the system and systems like it.

Is that all? The root of your problem with it is that they've devised a clever way of obscuring how they check for the hacks. That's the entire point of the system and why people love it. You've provided a lot of basic information to illustrate that it's not possible to see what VAC is checking for, which nobody in this thread was disputing. What you've failed to provide is a good reason why anybody besides hackers should care. Where are all the false positives persecuting innocent little Timmy the curious who was just trying to find out... I dunno... how to hack without getting caught? Nobody cares that you can't learn some unspecified nugget of conveniently non-hack-oriented knowledge derived from the scrutiny of the anti-hack system if it's at the likely expense of the products people enjoy.

 

[Mr.Mattress]

I would like to ask the question: What exactly does the hack do? Is it an Auto-Aimer? An Extra-Item-Reciever? Does it hack into accounts? All I saw on the thing was that it used Steam's Workshop, and didn't go into detail as to what it actually did.

Still, for a professional to even consider using a Hack is pretty low, and I support Valve's position of "Ban all Hackers and Cheaters" over the Hacker's teams position of "What he did was bad, but it shouldn't be up to Valve to ban him because he's pro!" I mean, if a Football player used Steroids for like a week and didn't ever do it again, he'd still be banned for that week of steroid abuse. This guy is no different from any other professional who cheats.

 

[Atmos Duality]

I would like to ask the question: What exactly does the hack do? Is it an Auto-Aimer? An Extra-Item-Reciever? Does it hack into accounts? All I saw on the thing was that it used Steam's Workshop, and didn't go into detail as to what it actually did.

Yeah, I noticed that the source specifically dodged that question other than "it's subtle".
Perhaps they didn't want people actively looking for signs of the hack in old footage of previous games.

 

[deleted+75193]

DELETED

 

[Irick]

Is that all? The root of your problem with it is that they've devised a clever way of obscuring how they check for the hacks.

No, my issue is that it is programmatically impossible for the system to take into account academic exploration, and that by that virtue it hampers the exploration of the game.

That's the entire point of the system and why people love it.

I don't love it.

You've provided a lot of basic information to illustrate that it's not possible to see what VAC is checking for, which nobody in this thread was disputing.

That's not what I am arguing. It's possible to check what VAC is doing by reverse engineering, however it is programmatically impossible for VAC to operate in a way that would satisfy my criteria and it has not been demonstrated that VAC actually does enough good to consider the trade off a net positive. Like I said before, there are games without anti-cheat that have thriving competitive scenes.

In the end, cheating to cheat is not fun and no one will play with you if you keep doing it. VAC provides a solution that, to me, is unnecessary at the expense of exploration and privacy. For instance, VAC has kernel level access to your computer, can read arbitrary memory addresses and regularly scans your DNS cache (which tells it what computers you've connected to, including websites). For me, these are all serious trade offs and as I have pointed out numerious times there doesn't exist ant evidence that VAC does much to improve the experience for it.

What you've failed to provide is a good reason why anybody besides hackers should care.

It adversely affects privacy, exploration of the game and there is a greater than zero chance of a false positive rendering you unable to connect to multiplayer. In short it has all of the downsides of DRM because it operates in much the same way.

Where are all the false positives persecuting innocent little Timmy the curious who was just trying to find out... I dunno... how to hack without getting caught?

Good question. You should ask Valve to release the data on VAC bans.

Nobody cares that you can't learn some unspecified nugget of conveniently non-hack-oriented knowledge derived from the scrutiny of the anti-hack system if it's at the likely expense of the products people enjoy.

I care. Curiosity, learning, privacy and consumer rights should never be sacrificed for the sake of a better product.

 

[renegade7]

I have always opposed the idea of any Zero Tolerance policy. Doubly so when the policies are enforced automatically and with no appeal process.

I see VAC and other automated systems with the power to permanently ostracize a player from a game's community as fundamentally detrimental to gaming. They inherently sacrifice the ability to iterate, explore, discover and learn game design at the altar of competitive play.

I think that's a sound argument in theory, but in practice I feel like that's saying that athletes should be allowed to take steroids to learn about biochemistry. There are many more productive ways to learn about game design, even in the context of multiplayer gaming: LUA scripting for multiplayer scenarios and map modding for instance. There is some academic value in learning about how memory hacking and injection software works, but that would be more interesting to software engineers than amateur game designers. But of course, nothing's preventing you from using a non-VAC server if you want to play around.

 

[MHR]

*drivel*

Wow, I really had to see it to believe it. How deluded to think that Valve games should be open to hacking just cuz you want them to be.

It's really a childish and indefensible position, and I'm glad VAC is here to ban like-minded cretins from their games.

 

[deleted+75193]

DELETED

 

[UltraPic]

As for damage to the competitive medium, I'd say far more damage would be done if VAC wasn't around as a decisive resolution. The rampant cheating, even at the pub level, would make the gaming scene in general a bad joke.

Just to back this up a bit. The WON versions of VAC secured games where a joke, so much so that we had to use an external anti cheat program to play on some servers (https://wiki.unitedadmins.com/FAQ:Cheating-Death_Client). If valve had sat around and did nothing (or even left VAC off by default) there would be no team fortress or counter strike any more.

 

[thedarkfreak]

...They inherently sacrifice the ability to iterate, explore, discover and learn game design at the altar of competitive play. ...

I can not comment on the specifics of this case, but the implication that the use of this program was not in any official bracket is troubling to say the least. VAC has always been an invasive piece of software by the nature of its operation (again, the analogy of a drug test is well served here). I have truly never been comfortable with it and systems like it, but doubly so when they are enforced with such a dumbed down black and white mentality. This solution to the supposed problem of cheating is just nuking it. It is so stupidly easy to protect against cheating in a competitive environment for video games it can be boiled down to a single word: checksum.

For the first point, you gave three examples of people who might want to experiment with or work around VAC

The first and third ones don't count(for Source engine games); a Valve employee can easily get help within the company with testing VAC itself. For the third option, "Here is a less obvious one: You are a game design student who wishes to gain a better understanding of how skill affects game balance in an intuitively familiar game.", VAC can be turned off on servers. Just host a server, have other people connect, and do your tests. (If you honestly think people should be allowed to surreptitiously alter the games of other players without their knowledge and consent, even for academic purposes, then we're just not going to agree. Turning off VAC is a reasonable option, and also lets others know what can be going on.)


For the last point, checksumming is pointless. There is no guaranteed protection on the client-side of the client/server model, because you cannot trust the client. A file is supposed to have a specific checksum? Modify the checking routine to always return the right answer. Memory gets scanned? Modify that routine. You are NOT in control of the client, and the client can be flat-out lying to you. (This is part of the reason why VAC gets changed so often; it's harder to patch client-side routines when the expected results constantly change.) VAC is both server-side and client-side; the server can tell if the client sends invalid data, and can take action appropriately.

Even having the tournament provide clean computers to play on wouldn't have helped in this case, because the hack piggybacked on the Steam Cloud functionality, which means as soon as the player logged in to his Steam account, he's got his hack back.

 

[RavingSturm]

Never got into CS:GO. Lots of cheaters from what I hear. Vac's pretty unreliable and I dont see Valve doing anything drastic. Valve customer support is really lousy.

 

[Irick]

I think that's a sound argument in theory, but in practice I feel like that's saying that athletes should be allowed to take steroids to learn about biochemistry. There are many more productive ways to learn about game design, even in the context of multiplayer gaming: LUA scripting for multiplayer scenarios and map modding for instance. There is some academic value in learning about how memory hacking and injection software works, but that would be more interesting to software engineers than amateur game designers. But of course, nothing's preventing you from using a non-VAC server if you want to play around.

The problem that I have been addressing is that there isn't an academic exemption, or even an informal guarantee of consideration in these cases. I've later on presented scenarios that are well within the realm of plausibility that would lead to positive hits on VAC by accident or simple inattentiveness. It seems to me that because the multiplayer element of the game is at risk, this presents a fairly textbook opportunity cost which will factor in negatively in consideration to creative exploration when modeling the situation within classical game theory.

"Here is a less obvious one: You are a game design student who wishes to gain a better understanding of how skill affects game balance in an intuitively familiar game.", VAC can be turned off on servers. Just host a server, have other people connect, and do your tests.

I've addressed this a few times, but it's a lot to go over. I'll paraphrase: This argument is somewhat undermined due to the default on nature of VAC within prominent game severs and human error.

For the last point, checksumming is pointless. There is no guaranteed protection on the client-side of the client/server model, because you cannot trust the client.

This same argument can be applied to VAC.

Even having the tournament provide clean computers to play on wouldn't have helped in this case,

This is more in line with my argument. Checksumming is an easy way to ensure that each computer boots from the same image.

because the hack piggybacked on the Steam Cloud functionality, which means as soon as the player logged in to his Steam account, he's got his hack back.

So disable Steam Cloud for tournaments.
There is no reason for tournament computers to connect to the internet. Allowing it is a security oversight on many levels. If valve really wants to ensure tournament santitude there is a very easy solution: distribute a tournament SteamOS image with CS:GO pre installed, set it up on a tournament wide SAN and have all statistics and local data stored in a local database until the event is over. The machines all boot off the SAN to RAM disk, thus eliminating any sort of disparency across the storage solutions, and if we are getting really hard core about this we periodically hardware dump the state of the machine to the SAN to facilitate analysis in the case of contestment or other dispute.

Loop closed, steamcloud doesn't get the fuck up the day, any cheat programs that in some literally technowizardry get injected get immortalized in a ram snapshot and the existing methods of detection become more effective because of the decreased likelihood of the banned software being able to update.

I firmly hold that there are better solutions to this problem that do not pose threat to the exploration of games systems.

 

[deleted+75193]

DELETED