On the contrary, I have never told Zynastor about a AH except when there was that little topic where that one guy kept updating his antihack to beat Oblivion, and I have found several anti-hack methods that still work against Oblivion and given them to people, privately. I don't like hackers ruining games as much as you do, and while I hack myself, I avoid hacking when it would completely take the fun out of a map for me, such as drop hacks or map hacks.


Yeah, for the brief month at best they win. Great. Anti-hacks are like protection, eventually the hackers will win out, just as unprotection has.

Ex is completely right, this is simply a fight we cannot win, I am honestly against EUD antihack methods that specifically target the hacking programs, they are simply a bad idea, because they can later make maps unplayable, and it's extremely simple for a hack producer to update and distribute a fix for their hack, redistributing a map takes a lot more time.

The way things are supposed to be? Conflict? Where is this coming from?

You're saying anti-hackers need to learn their place and they will never beat hackers, yet you suggest people play on ICCUP, which has a launcher(anti-hack) created by an anti-hacker. Weeeeee!

In reply to everyone:
If you want to continue in your futility, be my guest, but don't act like any one person saying anything to Zyn changes anything more than your trigger based methods which will never be able to top the potential of a DLL injection. A trigger will never be able to beat a hack, plain and simple.

As to the current sniper's AH, I am confident Zyn could get around it whenever he likes. Wait for the next Oblivion release and we'll see what happens.

Triggers beat hacks that aren't protected from them. Yeah, a perfect hack beats a perfect anti-hack(triggers) much like a perfect map unprotection beats a perfect map protection.
But if people want an anti-hack in their maps that works for the current hacks, even though they may be updated later, then don't stop them. It's the circle of life man. Unprotectors didn't stop people from finding a new way to protect a map, so new hacks shouldn't stop people from making new anti-hacks. It's the CIIIIIIIIIIIIRCLE OOOF LIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIFE YEAH! Until the circle breaks.

So in other words
I guess selling soul for brownie point with Zynastor has this side effect.

More of that side effect I see.
But you don't care if it takes fun out of it for anyone else. And you dropped in every game of TS that I've played with you, and I'm sure that had no effect in your opinion of AH's.

Yes eventually the hack will catch up to the AH, but you going out of your way to speed up that process is a diservice to the non-hacking community.

Don't EITHER of you say WE. You are apart of the hacking community, the rest of us are not. You do not get to raise our white flag when you aren't even on our side.
Yes, for the hackers. That's the point.

Excellent example Ex! Now let's see, we already know from past experiences that triggers DO stop hacks, so then someone saying something to Zynastor does make a difference. We even have an actual instance to cite with falkoner! I guess this statement was a guilty plea?
Except when it does (and has).

well tank to be honest hackers aren't goin to follow the rules and the good ones wont be caught. If they wana go out and break some rules its fine by me because really your not going to stop him and its not my hide on the line if he is caught. If Bliz catches him they may shut him down/prosecute him, but if the FBI has a hard time catching notorious hackers i don't think companies designing/monitering games are gona have a chance in hell of catch those hackers that know what they are doing.

If you can beat a hacker with anti hacks gl and the more power to you but the hacker has better computer knowledge than you and like excalibur said he will out think you if he decides its worth his time. This is because while you are fighting with scripts he is fighting with pure code which can get arround these scripts/commands and other things you set up to defend against it.

CAFG, you are simply making silly retorts to cover your previous ad hominem attacks, just because I use hacks does not mean I like everyone that uses them.


I think my point here was obvious, of course, you must nit pick it until you find something that makes you sound right, the point was that I have only ever told Zynastor about an AH once, and not a private one either, it had already been posted publicly, so you're wrong when you say that I run and tell Zynastor every AH, that is ridiculously hyperbolized.


First off, you've played.. what, 2 games of TS with me? Once again, a hyperbolism, however, you are right. I have an advantage to begin with, and admittedly that is unfair. However, it is not unfair to the point where the enemy still cannot win, the majority of maps I play aren't helped by multicommand, which is a major reason why I enjoy hacking. Yes, it is cheap, but it's not like people don't have a chance against me.


Once again, I have only said anything to Zynastor once, and he was already discussing it, so most likely an update was on the way anyway.


CAFG, I have been a member of this community far longer than I've been hacking, and I have helped create antihacks on several occasions, if any antihack programs were out I would host them on my website, if anything I've contributed to the antihack cause more than most here, and that is because I know the hacks, "know thy enemy", I enjoy hacking, but if people want to make their maps unhackable, I'm all for it, I don't need my hacks, they just enhance my gaming experience.

Move this to serious discussion now. This has turned into a topic with long posts with lots of text. Repeat posts, rephrasing what other people have already said, and unchanging opinions. It's perfect for Serious Discussion.

Falkoner and CAFG, cut the crap and get to the point.

This is all crap; that's all it can ever be. You cannot defend something so blatantly indefensible as cheating without resorting to bullshit, and you cannot attack a cheater except by (deservedly) attacking their (lack of) morals.

Hackers pretend they're just helping people, and will never be able to see from the point of view of someone who plays games fairly for competition. If you want to make a hack for the challenge of it, fine. That's the excuse that always gets tossed around, but it's flagrantly a lie. If that was the case, you'd test it in a game against a computer and then never use it again, and you definitely wouldn't distribute it. Developers need to flex their ego, so they show off what they can do as if they're the only people who can do it. They're not, they're just the only ones pathetic enough to devote an absurd amount of time to cheating.

The simple truth is that people who design or use hacks are self-centered people who do not have the capacity to understand the common decency that the rest of us abide to. I have never met a cheater who does in any sport or game, and I never expect to.

Remember, blizzard WANTS you to use hacks.
They punish you with disconnects you if you don't.
I guess they don't like the idea of anti-hack maps because you shouldn't be trying to run your own version of Broodwar "clean" in the first place.


EDIT: Oh by the way can anyone tell me an EUD value that detects Epic Sauce? That would fix the non-blizzard half of this problem.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Sep 6 2009, 4:10 pm by Tank_7.

Actually, I've gotten 2 accounts closed using EpicSauce exclusively, so I guess b.net detects it. Therefore you only need to worry about Oblivion. The current Anti Hack triggers provided at the beginning of this thread handle Oblivion.

Remaining issues:
-Will Zynastor somehow alter reality, life, the universe, and everything, and block EUD's in a future version of Oblivion?
-Will someone submit additional EUD conditions so that Mac users dont drop?
-Blinoobzard wants you to hack

To the best of my knowledge as of right now, aside from the Mac/Blinoobzard issue, this thread's first post is a functional anti hack.

And with my usual, trademark aloofness:
If you really want to fight this sort of battle (and I wouldn't, personally), the only real way to do it is to summon enough negative attention on the issue (and I mean the absolute shitstorm kind) such that Blizzard wouldn't be able to ignore the issue of these kinds of hacks. They know they could solve the problem at any fucking time. But right now it's easier (and cheaper) for them to just ignore the problem. Especially with their excuse of Starcraft 2 being the one-size-fits-all solution they're anticipating.

In fact, I'd even go as far as saying this works to their advantage to get people to migrate to Starcraft 2, really. Not sure if you could even win this battle, with that in mind...


But if you still want to fight, you must find a way to make them rue that sentiment. Preferably one that doesn't sacrifice your moral high ground, if you can (read: no counter-hacks). Because then they'll just be able to justify stubbornly refusing to change their stance by simply labeling you as part of the problem it (rather than a victim of it). Remember: They're giant corporate assholes, now. It's not like the old days.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Sep 7 2009, 3:45 pm by Tuxedo-Templar.

Are implying that blizzard is making their SC support suck on purpose to drive people away from it and towards SC2?

That sounds like something I'd do, if I owned Blizzard.

It's definitely a possibility.

And/or actively ignoring problems to focus on SC2, where cheating will be a thing of the past...for three days.

Legitimate players cannot hope to win this battle so long as they focus on options that target the hacks and not on options that target the people who hack. So long as the focus is on trigger-based solutions, which merely kick the hacker out of the game, there is a) no disincentive to trying to hack in a different game, and b) no disincentive to simply fight back against the anti-hack with newer hack versions. Instead, what we need is a system that will identify the people using the hacks and then punish them.

It used to be the case that if someone cheated in a game (cards, for instance), the appropriate response was to challenge them to a duel and then shoot them to death. Nowadays, we can see that it would be morally problematic (not to mention illegal) to hunt down and kill video game hackers in real life, but we can do the next best thing, that is, kill off their battle.net selves. The way that would be accomplished is through a program like this.

The advantages of such a system are immediately apparent: complete automation counters false positives, while networking means that only a relatively small number of users will be needed to keep the hacker population in check. Furthermore, because the system delivers serious punishment after only one offense, would-be hackers are discouraged from even trying to find a way around it. If multiple chances are allowed, they can test a hack to see whether or not it will be detected, and they may find a hack that is not protected against by such trial and error; on the other hand, if they're out after only one strike, they are discouraged from trying something out in the first place, even if what they would otherwise try would be something that the program did not detect. Finally, since it works by getting rid of the people (from your perspective) permanently, not just for that particular game, it wouldn't matter if the hack is later updated to be undetectable, because even if they update their cheat, they'll still be gotten rid of on the basis of their past offense, and new users with the updated hack will likewise be identified next time the program updates.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Sep 8 2009, 5:16 am by FoxWolf1.

That's a really good idea. Now the question is, who here can program well enough to make such an antihack? I daresay Farty could do at least some of it. If the code for Penguin plug is around, or some other hack detection, then it would be possible.

We would have to be completely sure that it would blacklist only those who are hacking...otherwise, it'll run rampant. Think Warden.