Closet Cheating- Some surprising statistics

[V3dock]

how do ghost-clients and auto-clicking hacks look like? I feel like there is a high change I encountered them without knowing.

 

[BedIntruder]

how do ghost-clients and auto-clicking hacks look like? I feel like there is a high change I encountered them without knowing.

Depends on the client, but a lot will look kind of legit kind of not.

(This is what a lot may look like)

 

[Tenebrous]

how do ghost-clients and auto-clicking hacks look like? I feel like there is a high change I encountered them without knowing.

They look like a good legit player.

 

[V3dock]

They look like a good legit player.

but what if they really are
I'm sorry, but do you know a video were the recorder fights the hacker, and maybe explains why it's not legit?

 

[Rick Astley]

Tene send me that list!

 

[BedIntruder]

but what if they really are
I'm sorry, but do you know a video were the recorder fights the hacker, and maybe explains why it's not legit?

They will seem a little fishy, and better than anyone,despite what.

The GUI will also be hidden, and a lot of people record with them

 

[ProjectAura]

I would like to see this list of these "unlegit" players .

 

[Certificate/Accounting]

Depends on the client, but a lot will look kind of legit kind of not.

(This is what a lot may look like)

Exploit Squad is one of the most legit group of people.

 

[BedIntruder]

Exploit Squad is one of the most legit group of people.

Exploit Squad is the greatest thing of all time.

At least they don't try to hide their client c:

 

[Ceroria]

On the one hand, I'd love to get my hands on that list of hacking players just for reference and data's sake. I am definitely interested to know who on our staff is hacking. That information may prove to be invaluable.

But on the other hand, there are so many complications with this data and its validity. Enough so that, no matter how confident Archybot is with his findings, we may not be able to act on them.

1. How exactly did Archybot get these findings? We can't confirm the validity of his findings unless we know how he got such information, but the post seems to just pull data from the air. It sounds like he mainly just compared his community's ban logs with who's on the listings, which has its own concern. But even if his data is backed by anticheat findings, anticheat itself is far from a flawless system; it's a good system, but it does still make mistakes as you can find with a quick google search.
   
2. If Archybot is pulling his hacking confirmation data from Badlion's records, but not pulling any current data from our system, how can we really be certain of his findings? Our networks are rather similar, but it is entirely possible for two distinct confounding circumstances to occur that would throw off the data. Either case is possible, which would be the primary flaw in this research method:
   1. A user doesn't hack over there, but does hack over here. Cases like these would deflate the proposed number of hackers.
   2. A user does hack over there, but doesn't hack over here. Cases like these would inflate the proposed number of hackers.
3. Lastly, even if the findings are bulletproof and somehow guarantees that the two exceptional cases above are not possible, we would not be able to punish for it immediately like some people may be anticipating. This is all (questionably-verifiable) evidence coming from another separate network, a definitive third party. We would benefit from the added information by being more careful around those players, but we couldn't ban them for hacks with, "Archybot says so" as their evidence. That's not how it works.

I think we all can get behind the idea of removing closet hackers, which is why everyone is rallying around these findings. But from a community standpoint, we need to remember that there is a right way to do so, and a wrong way to do so. And sometimes the right way to do so is also the most arduous. Yet it is better for us to take our time doing things the right way, as opposed to rushing into a band-aid solution and then pay for it in the end.


Ceroria, we aren't going to get angry at you if we're working together towards the same goal (though I would up the ante on your "bugging" efforts, since even I was not aware you were making such an attempt).

But what we will get angry about is people who are demanding fixes without offering solutions or alternatives. And in addition to that, don't get angry when the system doesn't meet your expectations. Such actions sound to us like, "I'm not impressed, therefore you all must suck." We're all in this together, but no one's going anywhere if everyone endlessly antagonizes each other.

Furthermore, we are still working towards improving XAC, but remember that such a thing is very complicated and requires a lot of research. We would love to adopt other well-established anti-cheat systems, or perhaps even just know the methods in which they implemented their own hack tests. But such systems are closely guarded and are unlikely to be shared (selfish, but understandable). So everyone who demands that XAC be equal to anticheat, or MCG ditch XAC and use anticheat instead, should adjust their expectations back to something actually realistic.

My comment about the bugging was more of a joke, however there is an air of truth to the fact that I will not stop trying to assist in solving this problem until we have asserted a valid solution. As for who I talked to, yesterday night Vanessa and I had a detailed conversation regarding this very issue. As a result of said conversation I assume she will spread the list to the Sr. Staff, however I can give it to you now privately if you wish.

People cheating, especially on our network, and even more than that within the staff team is truly unacceptable. Regarding the list, yes anticheat is SUPER accurate, and hardly ever sets off false positives (although nothing is perfect) so I highly encourage the Sr. Staff team to work together to investigate, indentify, and eradicate this issue and these cheaters.

 

[Justin / Bullet]

anticheat has no flaws. Everyone who claims to be banned by it and was recording was using a ghost client

funny you should say that rofl what happened to trying to prove your legitimacy when you were banned on multiple accs

edit Tenebrous12321 rofl probably a bit more than that but whatever. js quite ironic that you should make this thread.

 

[Tenebrous]

funny you should say that rofl what happened to trying to prove your legitimacy when you were banned on multiple accs

already admitted to using left and right as left xd