Maphack will destroy this game just like Coh1

Well topic says it all really.

I contacted Noun about Relics view on anticheat. His answer was somewhere along the lines of "We have some stuff planned but were not telling the crowd so potential cheaters cant try to work around it"

Now this answer is surprisingly similar to the answer Relic always gave concerning CoH1. Unfortunately, we all know what that meant: the manual review of replays being sent to Relic to see if maphacking/drophacking/other shit was going on. Basically it meant one person was dedicating his time to track down cheaters and ban them (who could then buy a new key for 2 or 3 dollars, but thats another subject entirely).

Supposedly CoH2 once again working with P2P also pretty much rules out any decent form of anticheat software, since for that you apparently have to run the game on your own servers. This essentially means that a Punkbuster or a VAC will never be possible for COH2.

It's just so sad cause I really LOVE CoH2. Unfortunately, as soon as the first maphack cheat is released I'll probably refrain from playing it just as I did with CoH1. The feeling of starting a new game, and knowing that your opponent MIGHT just see everything you're doing is excruciating to say the least.

So I beg you Relic: PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE give this game some form of proper Anticheat software. If you don't, it's dead in the water.

Maphack won't cause much problem like CoH1 because flanking is useless here

IF, and only IF COH2 will have a problem with cheaters I will grab Rémy and we will create a new Fair Play Forum and we will ask to get paid to do that job, but we'll cut the head of any cheater, be sure of that.

Also, COH2 is going to have a feature on replays (in the next future) to track down players camera movement, which would mean that using maphack would become pretty much impossible because we would instantly spot them.

When I was at Eurogamer I talked both to Relic and THQ (well, now SEGA, but people are the same) about this issue and they assured me COH2 won't need our help, they'll put various improvements to defend against cheaters (part of these features are secret for obvious reasons but rely on server side stuff like League of Legends)

I wonder: Could you apply the same logic that applies to computer vulnerabilities to anti-cheat? There are two main camps - reveal vulns so that users can better protect themselves, or keep them secret so that people don't find them. As far as I'm concerned the former (called 'Full Disclosure') was completely vindicated back in 1853 by A.C. Hobbs talking about locks:

A commercial, and in some respects a social doubt has been started within the last year or two, whether or not it is right to discuss so openly the security or insecurity of locks. Many well-meaning persons suppose that the discussion respecting the means for baffling the supposed safety of locks offers a premium for dishonesty, by showing others how to be dishonest. This is a fallacy. Rogues are very keen in their profession, and know already much more than we can teach them respecting their several kinds of roguery.

Rogues knew a good deal about lock-picking long before locksmiths discussed it among themselves, as they have lately done. If a lock, let it have been made in whatever country, or by whatever maker, is not so inviolable as it has hitherto been deemed to be, surely it is to the interest of honest persons to know this fact, because the dishonest are tolerably certain to apply the knowledge practically;and the spread of the knowledge is necessary to give fair play to those who might suffer by ignorance.

It cannot be too earnestly urged that an acquaintance with real facts will, in the end, be better for all parties. Some time ago, when the reading public was alarmed at being told how London milk is adulterated, timid persons deprecated the exposure, on the plea that it would give instructions in the art of adulterating milk; a vain fear, milkmen knew all about it before, whether they practiced it or not; and the exposure only taught purchasers the necessity of a little scrutiny and caution, leaving them to obey this necessity or not, as they pleased.

So to make this relevant, would there be any mileage in making the anti-cheat/cheating methods more open so that players can better spot it themselves rather than referring it to a third party?

Or do you think that the anti-cheat stuff doesn't fully sit within the purview of this argument, as there are crucial differences in the problem definition?

well, you and me are probably the only persons on this forum that share this opinion. i have been insulted and private messaged over things i posted on this forum about stuff like IP bans or scripts that run the coh2 performance test/saved games over and over. Obviously trying to keep people dumb and act as if everything is fine is considered superior than just coming up with a decent solution :-)

the problem is that EVERY anti-cheat can be circumvented. you can make it harder to cheat to the point where it becomes unreasonably complex, but every minute you invest into making your game "cheater proof" is a minute spent not improving the game in a more obvious way. basically, making your game cheater-proof is pretty expensive and does not guarantee you that you will not get outsmarted by some script kiddie anyway.

imho the easiest way to dissuade hackers is a decently regular patch cycle, with each patch deprecating the previous hacks.

tl;dr: there will always be cheats.

At the end of the day I don't care whether anticheat methods are kept secret are not, whether we let the players detect other cheaters or whether we let a third party software company do it.

I do see, however, that games like BF3, SC2, CSS etc have nowhere near the problems with cheating going on that CoH does. Sure, there has been the occasional maphack incident in SC2, but in CoH1 you will run into a cheater within an hour of automatching guaranteed.

Based on that I do believe in third party software to battle cheating. Since Relic already let Coh1 get overrun by cheaters and basically does nothing to stop it hearing them say "we won't disclose our methods but we will get them" doesn't exactly give me a lot of confidence CoH2 will indeed be cheat free.

All in all it kinda feels like they don't really care all that much. At least, not enough to shell out the cash to get decent Punkbuster support I suppose...

@Crawler: Yep, there will always be cheats. Now go and compare BF3 cheatuse with CoH1 cheatuse. It's night and day.

the problem is that EVERY anti-cheat can be circumvented.

there will always be cheats.

It is not a problem, but a given that every anti-cheat can be circumvented. However, this is no reason to decrease investments in anti-cheat. For example: there will always be crime. Would you suggest decreasing police and judicial spendings is an effective way of dealing with this (abstaining from legalization, which cant be done with cheats either)?

Your alternative does not prevent mass cheating in the short run and the quality of the patch updates to prevent cheating in the long run are quite costly as well.

Or you can make a game server sided like League of Legends

I do see, however, that games like BF3, SC2, CSS etc have nowhere near the problems with cheating going on that CoH does. Sure, there has been the occasional maphack incident in SC2, but in CoH1 you will run into a cheater within an hour of automatching guaranteed.

Where is your evidence or is this statement anecdotal?

Where is your evidence or is this statement anecdotal?

Youre not an idiot are you? Or do you also need proof for the sun rising and setting every day?

Youre not an idiot are you? Or do you also need proof for the sun rising and setting every day?

ahahahahha good one

With Relic insisting on P2P - it was only a matter of time for the maphack/synch hack to surface.

When I found out they'd maintained the same exact networking system - I knew the frustrations would continue.

The good news here is though that the COH Steam version is maphack free - so hopefully when Relic return to cleaning up that mess of a transfer - COH 1 will be better than ever.

Why maphack when there are no ranks? Just to pwn people into hating the game? For the lulz so to speak?

Why maphack when there are no ranks? Just to pwn people into hating the game? For the lulz so to speak?

Who knows what makes people map hack?

But I certainly agree - the current ranking system is a complete joke that does nothing to inspire competitive play amongst online players.

Oh - I won - you lost - we both got XP and a shinny new Rank! HI FIVE!

SC2 doesn't give a damn to maphack because skill > all

Maphack can't give you win, only able to "Godly" defend against cheese build. Ultimately it comes down to mechanical skill and build order anyway.

And people tends to spam game anyway

Why maphack when there are no ranks? Just to pwn people into hating the game? For the lulz so to speak?

Look at CoH1 steam version now, some idiots keep drophacking without playing a single seconds. They don't make any sense at all. Then don't use common sense to judge idiots.

SC2 doesn't give a damn to maphack because skill > all

Maphack can't give you win, only able to "Godly" defend against cheese build. Ultimately it comes down to mechanical skill and build order anyway.

And people tends to spam game anyway

Uhm, this is incredibly untrue. Having a maphack (and using it well) would show all your enemy's drop/harass, positioning, expand timing and overall build. I think knowing all that would be a giant advantage.

Depending on what you classify 'cheese defense' I'd argue that the maphack only helps in seeing it coming (something good scouting can do too), and not defending the actual push.

Youre not an idiot are you? Or do you also need proof for the sun rising and setting every day?

You're probably just getting outplayed and blaming your losses on maphacks. An hour of matchmaking is what, 2-3 games?

i'm not saying don't "invest" in anti-cheat or that i don't want any anti cheat measures... but people are always like "oh, p2p = easier cheating" which is simply untrue. if you don't agree, prove how it is harder to cheat with a server infrastructure.

there are cheats for league of legends, for call of duty, for bf3 etc... the only reason cheating in coh was more prevalent was because when the fair play section on GR was closed (afaik, even before it was closed) people didn't get banned anymore for cheating, which is basically an invitation. on top of that, with games like LoL, where you lose a leveled account that you potentially invested a lot of money in (or at least quite a bit of time), you might be more careful than if you can simply buy a new key for $2 and then KEEP PLAYING WITH THE SAME ACCOUNT.

as for coh2 anti-cheat, we will see in time how effective it is... my guess (with all the lacking features and general level of development of coh2) is that it will be pretty basic (which is not necessarily a bad thing).

Uhm, this is incredibly untrue. Having a maphack (and using it well) would show all your enemy's drop/harass, positioning, expand timing and overall build. I think knowing all that would be a giant advantage.

Depending on what you classify 'cheese defense' I'd argue that the maphack only helps in seeing it coming (something good scouting can do too), and not defending the actual push.

High level players would execute multi-attack at the same time anyway. Even maphackers can see them coming doesn't mean they can defend it.

Same logic as CoH1 4 ways Rifles/flamers flanking

I don't want to be negative, but being able to track camera does not alone prevent cheat. You can still see the units on the minimap, play chat or sound at unit creation/unlock, etc.