delete

[Lulux]

Delete

 

[joejerino]

Tested it on minelers.fr with over 800 players on a single realm and had 0 issues.
We used it on practice and factions 1.8 and literally no issues / auto bans were on and with around 100 autobans we had only 3-5 false bans (mainly because of the server issue etc)
I also Tested multiple anticheats and this one is the best of all
Anticheat tested :
Verus (best plan)
Spartan
AAC
Godseye
LighterAC (big skid btw)
I am not saying that these anticheats or bad not at all! They are great ones specially verus (except lighterac)


Huge vouch

What makes it better than verus

 

[ida64]

What makes it better than verus

I'd comment on this myself, but that would be extremely bias. I'll let my users speak for their own experiences.

 

[joejerino]

I'd comment on this myself, but that would be extremely bias. I'll let my users speak for their own experiences.

please comment on it

 

[Lulux]

What makes it better than verus

Stability But verus is really good, it's just that I'm a Faction server owner and I had a better experience with deus. I think verus is more for practice / hcf gamemodes (haven't tried Deus on an hcf but soon c[DOUBLEPOST=1595513154][/DOUBLEPOST]

Some evidence that LighterAC is a skid? I have seen checks & base code, and noticed only 4-5 similar checks to other anticheats, which is completely normal? 100% If I would see this anticheat's code or any other anticheats in the market I would notice some similarities to other anticheats checks.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SXYvSmHlxxtArzz6qBrk_IPycUw2LB9q-Gs5twKUqLI/edit

I got a lot more but to lazy to post it

 

[Lulux]

OMG, that's so old, he has recoded almost everything I'm talking about version 2.0 and you are showing evidence about version 1.2?

It's not that old (2 weeks old) and let's stop speaking about it I don't want to trash the thread of this stupid stuff.

 

[Scifi]

Vouch for this man

 

[Classified]

I've never understood why you need so many damn checks for things, instead of having a bunch of small checks that aren't that good why not have one or two really in-depth checks.. 15 checks for kill aura seems ridiculous.

 

[Saaami]

cos he fancy

 

[Scifi]

I've never understood why you need so many damn checks for things, instead of having a bunch of small checks that aren't that good why not have one or two really in-depth checks.. 15 checks for kill aura seems ridiculous.

Because different checks do different things, having multiple checks rather than one long ass check is cleaner and easier to maintain, etc.

 

[Beb]

Because different checks do different things, having multiple checks rather than one long ass check is cleaner and easier to maintain, etc.

If you cram fifteen terrible checks into one terrible check, yeah, it is going to be long and difficulty to maintain. What I believe Classified is saying is that it would be better to have one or two high quality checks.

 

[Lyphiard]

If you cram fifteen terrible checks into one terrible check, yeah, it is going to be long and difficulty to maintain. What I believe Classified is saying is that it would be better to have one or two high quality checks.

Not necessarily true. If each of those checks is designed to do something different, then it's better for both the developer and the end user to maintain them separately.

From the developer's perspective, it's a lot easier to maintain. You run a smaller risk of breaking something big with only a minor change.

From the user's perspective, it offers so much more customization. A particular server owner might find that a specific feature or check doesn't work well with their game mode or server configuration, in which case they can simply disable it. If you were to string together 15 checks together into a single one, then you'd lose the protection of those 14 other checks if a single one causes an issue. No matter how "high quality" the checks are, nothing will perfectly fit every server owner's use case.

 

[Scifi]

If you cram fifteen terrible checks into one terrible check, yeah, it is going to be long and difficulty to maintain. What I believe Classified is saying is that it would be better to have one or two high quality checks.

If you have 5 checks and you cram them into 1 singular class and you happen to break one of them you risk breaking the other 4 as a result, where as if their isolated in their own class you don't risk breaking them as easily. It's also much cleaner to maintain, no matter how good of a developer you are if you cram everything into one class its gonna be a pain in the ass to clean up, for example do you see people cramming all their utilities in 1 singular class? (If so that's very disappointing)

 

[Beb]

Not necessarily true. If each of those checks is designed to do something different, then it's better for both the developer and the end user to maintain them separately.

I agree that checks which do different things being separate is a good thing. However, I disagree that the number of checks which we often find in anticheats would be necessary to detect cheating. One or two well made and clean checks are better than fifteen checks.

From the developer's perspective, it's a lot easier to maintain. You run a smaller risk of breaking something big with only a minor change.

If you have 5 checks and you cram them into 1 singular class and you happen to break one of them you risk breaking the other 4 as a result, where as if their isolated in their own class you don't risk breaking them as easily. It's also much cleaner to maintain, no matter how good of a developer you are if you cram everything into one class its gonna be a pain in the ass to clean up

VCS and good design can fix these issues.

do you see people cramming all their utilities in 1 singular class?

Yeah, I do. It is not uncommon for developers to be learning how to program and simultaneously sell plugins. Is it a good thing? No. Does it happen? Yes. Don't be over idealistic with your expectations.

From the user's perspective, it offers so much more customization. A particular server owner might find that a specific feature or check doesn't work well with their game mode or server configuration, in which case they can simply disable it. If you were to string together 15 checks together into a single one, then you'd lose the protection of those 14 other checks if a single one causes an issue. No matter how "high quality" the checks are, nothing will perfectly fit every server owner's use case.

Having fifteen bad options to choose from seems irrelevant when you can have two well made checks which will, most of the time, work. If a server owner is having issues with a check, they should contact the developer to resolve the issue. Disabling checks to potentially allow cheaters seems like a flawed mentality from the user's perspective. From the developer's side of things, it seems incorrect to tell users to disable the checks instead of fixing the issue with the anticheat they are selling.

 

[Scifi]

I agree that checks which do different things being separate is a good thing. However, I disagree that the number of checks which we often find in anticheats would be necessary to detect cheating. One or two well made and clean checks are better than fifteen checks.



VCS and good design can fix these issues.


Yeah, I do. It is not uncommon for developers to be learning how to program and simultaneously sell plugins. Is it a good thing? No. Does it happen? Yes. Don't be over idealistic with your expectations.


Having fifteen bad options to choose from seems irrelevant when you can have two well made checks which will, most of the time, work. If a server owner is having issues with a check, they should contact the developer to resolve the issue. Disabling checks to potentially allow cheaters seems like a flawed mentality from the user's perspective. From the developer's side of things, it seems incorrect to tell users to disable the checks instead of fixing the issue with the anticheat they are selling.

See, your basically saying "Hey, throw 15 different checks into one class since your claiming to be a great developer!" but that's not how it works, "Ideally" you should have different classes for things that do different things, I don't see why he'd want a phase check in a speed check now do you?

 

[Lyphiard]

Having fifteen bad options to choose from seems irrelevant when you can have two well made checks which will, most of the time, work. If a server owner is having issues with a check, they should contact the developer to resolve the issue. Disabling checks to potentially allow cheaters seems like a flawed mentality from the user's perspective. From the developer's side of things, it seems incorrect to tell users to disable the checks instead of fixing the issue with the anticheat they are selling.

I'm not saying the 15 checks are "bad", just that each check is designed to do something slightly different. As I previously mentioned, there is no "one size fits all" solution, so users should be able to fine-tune the settings based on their application.

Something that works for one customer will not necessarily work for another customer because each customer has a different application with different requirements. In a perfect world, you'd have a solution that can detect bad actors 100% of the time, but that's impossible today even with the most advanced software. So you need to compromise and choose the specific vectors you want to focus on which make the most sense given a particular application.

 

[Beb]

See, your basically saying "Hey, throw 15 different checks into one class since your claiming to be a great developer!" but that's not how it works, "Ideally" you should have different classes for things that do different things, I don't see why he'd want a phase check in a speed check now do you?

...?

I agree that checks which do different things being separate is a good thing. However, I disagree that the number of checks which we often find in anticheats would be necessary to detect cheating. One or two well made and clean checks are better than fifteen checks.

 

[Scifi]

...?

Right, but why would someone have 15 checks if they do the same thing? your instantly assuming that's what he's doing?

 

[Beb]

Right, but why would someone have 15 checks if they do the same thing? your instantly assuming that's what he's doing?

Review what I said in previous messages:

Having fifteen bad options to choose from seems irrelevant when you can have two well made checks which will, most of the time, work.

Something that works for one customer will not necessarily work for another customer because each customer has a different application with different requirements. In a perfect world, you'd have a solution that can detect bad actors 100% of the time, but that's impossible today even with the most advanced software. So you need to compromise and choose the specific vectors you want to focus on which make the most sense given a particular application.

Explain to me how something like an Aim or a Speed check is going to change based on application?

 

[ajl]

GLWS

Had a good experience with this user when I was making a server,
he offered to sell me his anticheat and custom spigot fork for $25,
he allowed me to test the anticheat as well and it was good.