Cheating

[volk]

It is true, but you can keep waiting for the one that convinces you. Actually ... the latest locerf ACMI shows PoleCat being teamkilled, when he wasn't - his attacker was a legitimate opponent ...

Sure, whatever. Track or it didn't happen, and that's only the beginning of the investigation...

The best thing is not just one track, but two, from different computers, and even better yet, a track from the accused.

So, if I see "additional" chaffs and flares in ACMI and missiles going to it, but haven't ingame track (it crashed), isn't a proof? Ok, how about it was not my (client) ACMI, but server?

And if I saw it several times in one ACMI by ONLY one player? And have another ACMI with that player (he did it twice)?

Edited October 28, 2009 by volk

[Kuky]

How about when someone is going head on with you even with missiles fired at him and does not even evade and not get hit (would any common sense tell you something is not right?) would that be sign of foul play?

 

The way some of you keep defending accusations of cheating (not just yourself but how cheating is not happening because it can't be proven, not even when TacView shows him dumping 4x times the amount of flares of what aircraft can carry) is that with so many instances where I see something not making any common sense, in either how certain person is flying or how good their SA is, to you it is all either lag or team work or just the guy is so good at this game (in fair ways) then this has to mean this game is completely FUBAR as things like this occur a lot and not just to me so then why play it?

[volk]

Ok, guys, you hard convince me! There are no cheats, no proofs, but only cool players, packet losses, buggy tracks... and my hallucinations. Don't believe your eyes and mind, believe in miracles!

[EtherealN]

I spy sarcasm. ;)

 

volk, no-one has said that there's no cheats. However, people have indicated problems with using ACMI as evidence, and also indicated that sometimes you can cause greater harm through decrying alleged cheating than by just shrugging it off as "perhaps he was that lucky". That is because a server or squadron where everyone is arguing about cheats is not a server or squadron that is having fun. So as long as the problem isn't constant an argument can be made to be a bit more careful before crying cheat.

 

However, I don't have first-hand knowledge of the cheating situation in LockOn, so it may well be that it has gone to that point where it really is a serious problem, in which case you can freely disregard what I said above.

[Shaman]

I completely agree with Crunch (and the 51st guys and GG,) all the unfounded accusations of cheating is a much bigger problem than cheating itself.

 

and in the end:

http://forums.eagle.ru/rules.php#en

1.6. - No multiplayer disputes on the ED forums...

[EtherealN]

The key point of that is squad vs squad, or person vs person.

 

But yes, the general idea applies.

[Renato71]

I have to ask for a confirmation on something...

 

Number of chaffs in tacview's recording does NOT always relate to actual number of chaffs dispensed and/or/nor number of chaffs in track recording?

[X-man]

Let me be clear. Tacviews do not always portray what actually happen. But that does not mean ALL tacviews show errors. Most of the time, tacviews are accurate. So if you can show several tacviews with same behavior/suspicion, it is more likely to be true.

[Renato71]

Yeah, I know that tacview does not record perfectly. I just need a clear confirmation in relation to chaff recordings :)

 

I'm not expert in LUA, so I do not know how one clients tacview communicates with server and other clients. For example, if player has bad connection with server, server could incorrectly receive his data and forward such (incorrect) data to other clients?

[X-man]

I'm not expert in LUA, so I do not know how one clients tacview communicates with server and other clients. For example, if player has bad connection with server, server could incorrectly receive his data and forward such (incorrect) data to other clients?

Correct. If there was an inconsistency, it would be just as likely for any variable. However, the more ACMI with the same consistency, the less likely it is to be a bad connection issue.

[Renato71]

However, the more ACMI with the same consistency, the less likely it is to be a bad connection issue.

 

But, from what I have understood, if a clients acmi receives data from a servers acmi, then an error will be more or less consistently distributed over the network. Therefore, large number of clients acmies are NOT the stronger proof as they are only "copies" of the servers acmi, which is incorrect in the first place, no?

Such acmies only prove that those clients have a good connection with the server :)

 

So, a track would be the most reliable proof, preferably more then two tracks of the event in qustion.

[X-man]

No, the server does not have to record ACMI. The clients gets data from the exports. So there is no 'main' data which can corrupt on the server side. If a client have a bad connection, he will not receive the exported data correctly and he will then get a faulty ACMI (or at least COULD get).

 

Exported data is different from the track data, which is why you can always get a track, but not ACMI, as the server export function must be on then.

 

So, a track would be the most reliable proof, preferably more then two tracks of the event in qustion.

Basically, try to have different sources when going to some server host and asking for a ban or warning on the offender. Witness, screenshot, logs, ACMI, track etc...

 

edit: And by witness, I dont mean 'the guy evaded 5 missiles head on flying straight' but more like the amount of flares he was popping or similar...

Edited October 28, 2009 by X-man

[Renato71]

No, no...

What I mean is that server receives corrupted data from one client (due to his bad connection) and distributes it around in such form (as received - corrupted). All of the other clients will receive same data from the server only. Such data will be corrupted in relation to the "source" client, but OK in relation to server (as they are carbon copies, created by the server).

 

In effect, if one client has acmi with over-chaffing, it is very likely that all clients - expect suspected player - will record an acmi with over-chaffing.

 

Therefore, only acmi recording that can act as a proof is the one recorded by the suspected player (source client), not by the server or other clients.

 

But, any track can be taken as a proof.

[X-man]

Therefore, only acmi recording that can act as a proof is the one recorded by the suspected player (source client), not by the server or other clients.

 

But, any track can be taken as a proof.

In that sense, yes. But if you have such a bad connection, you shouldnt be flying on public servers ;)

 

But lets say you have ACMIs of 2 or 3 different instances with same chaff behavior, it is most likely not a connection issue.

 

EDIT: Re-read your post. In the way you are describing it, the server is receiving false data from the offender. That has nothing to do with ACMI, and will in fact give the chaff/flare behavior in game. So track, ACMI and live play will see the excessive chaff/flares. So 'gameplay' will be affected. Intentional or not, excessive chaff/flares will still destroy the fun for other players, and hence the guy in question should not fly on public servers...

 

But enough with this, flare/chaff hacks are quite easy to discover if you can record the same behavior during multiple, independent sessions...

Edited October 28, 2009 by X-man

[Renato71]

Well, I had to ask because some time ago a buddy of mine was accused of chaff hack. Since I know that he does not posses skills needed to implement any hack of any kind, and that he does have a bad connection, I fellt it was important to accentuate that acmi alone cannot be take as a proof of anything. Rather, as a starting point for curiosity :)

 

As for the topic at general, I feel that it is very important to dicuss any possibility of cheating. Please, do not jump at the people that are suspicious of cheating. That will not help them to understand all quirks of the LOFC and recognize true cheaters :)

[X-man]

Well, I had to ask because some time ago a buddy of mine was accused of chaff hack. Since I know that he does not posses skills needed to implement any hack of any kind, and that he does have a bad connection, I fellt it was important to accentuate that acmi alone cannot be take as a proof of anything. Rather, as a starting point for curiosity :)

 

As for the topic at general, I feel that it is very important to dicuss any possibility of cheating. Please, do not jump at the people that are suspicious of cheating. That will not help them to understand all quirks of the LOFC and recognize true cheaters :)

Indeed. Important to note is that even though your intension is not 'evil' :) you can still cause trouble for other players.

 

Like excessive warping due to bad connection, excessive chaff/flare due to some unknown factor/mod, Accidental modded Lockon etc

 

So it's important to keep your Lockon/connection in good shape for everyones sake...

[Wilde]

How about when someone is going head on with you even with missiles fired at him and does not even evade and not get hit (would any common sense tell you something is not right?) would that be sign of foul play?

 

The way some of you keep defending accusations of cheating (not just yourself but how cheating is not happening because it can't be proven, not even when TacView shows him dumping 4x times the amount of flares of what aircraft can carry) is that with so many instances where I see something not making any common sense, in either how certain person is flying or how good their SA is, to you it is all either lag or team work or just the guy is so good at this game (in fair ways) then this has to mean this game is completely FUBAR as things like this occur a lot and not just to me so then why play it?

 

This pretty much. Made me quit HL too. Lots of stupid stuff happening and the general attitude of many pilots is like what I have only seen on Quake servers like 10 years ago.

 

 

About Tacview, indeed it can record completely incorrect stuff occasionally. The weirdest thing I have seen was my missile missing the bogey in Tacview although it hit in game. In that particular Tacview track both the missile and the bogey just kept on flying whereas in game both exploded right there. I have no idea where Tacview took the data for that from. After seeing this I don't take anything for granted anymore in Tacview.

[GGTharos]

How about when someone is going head on with you even with missiles fired at him and does not even evade and not get hit (would any common sense tell you something is not right?) would that be sign of foul play?

 

I wouldn't be surpised to see this happen given missile sensitivity to chaff. I wouldn't call this a sign of foul play in the least, unless there were additional suspicious things.

 

And this is exactly what I mean about shouting 'cheat' without knowing what's going on.

 

The way some of you keep defending accusations of cheating (not just yourself but how cheating is not happening because it can't be proven, not even when TacView shows him dumping 4x times the amount of flares of what aircraft can carry) is that with so many instances where I see something not making any common sense, in either how certain person is flying or how good their SA is, to you it is all either lag or team work or just the guy is so good at this game (in fair ways) then this has to mean this game is completely FUBAR as things like this occur a lot and not just to me so then why play it?

 

I believe what I said is that the moment you spot something suspicious is the beginning of investigation - in short, if you're going to shout cheat, you better KNOW it's a cheat. And you just gave me an example above where you'd call someone a cheat where quite possibly it wouldn't be.

[golfsierra2]

Definition of cheat by Raven's personal dictionary

 

Cheat: cht

 

To deceive or practise deceit, esp. for one's own gain; trick or swindle (someone) in a combat flight simulation, which normally can not be proven

[Laud]

Btw: I know LRM is free available. The "Secret" was just some joking! So don't get me wrong here please! ;)

[Pilotasso]

This thread IHMO has no reaison d'etre anymore. It has been explained here to its author that its hard to get proof for cheating/exploiting (never cared to diferentiate both without resorting into never ending skillfull semantics anyway) nor this is the place to keep talking about it. This is only going to degenerate into personal confrontations.

[monotwix]

I’m deeply and personally shocked.

[monotwix]

Not really.

[Kuky]

Fair enough GG, to me though bottom line is I see lot of things that don't make sense when I fly online in LockOn and it makes me not fly it... and sadly it does the same to many others, proof of that is almost complete lack of all the squads online and I hope 1.13 changes that... or better, new DCS modules pop up :)

[BrumTx]

Like I said in an earlier post...... I'll just stick to making missions and playing LO/FC against the AI i've put in the missions. IF 1.13 ever arrives we'll see what that bring's