Anti-Cheat in the New Engine
Radix
Join Date: 2005-01-10 Member: 34654Members, Constellation
Join Date: 2005-01-10 Member: 34654Members, Constellation
One of the major reasons I don't play World of Warcraft or Doom 3 is because of their respective, intrustive methods for catching cheaters.
Before anyone gets the wrong idea let me make two points crystal:
<!--coloro:cyan--><span style="color:cyan"><!--/coloro-->First, if it's not obvious already, I believe in the depth of a game before almost anything else. Depth is utterly shattered by cheating,<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> and while I believe that scripting is a reasonable level of customization (this is not a scripting discussion, I'm speaking in terms of my opinion and belief), real cheating such as speedhacking, esp (wall hacks), aimbots or the more insidious toggles, and even white walls and spikes are all terrible elements of gameplay. Speaking purely in terms of game design, they subtract more fun from the collective experience than they add, which makes them a negative gameplay element.
<!--coloro:lime--><span style="color:lime"><!--/coloro-->Second, VAC does not stop cheating.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> While most of the complaints are simply due to a lack of skill on the part of the "victim" of an aimbot or what have you, there are <b>a few</b> actual instances of cheating still left. Several players still aimbot without <b>any</b> repercussion from Valve's system.
The point I want to make most in this thread is that <b>it is not a game designer's job to arbitrate cheating in that game</b>.
Take baseball for instance. The designers of baseball way back when it was first implemented would have set out to create a series of rules. Breaking these rules constitutes bad sportsmanship, but more interested parties (namely the referees) are the ones to actually enforce the rules and mitigate cheating.
<b>It is arrogant to think that an algorithm can replace the watchful eye of a referee.</b> It won't work, because whatever system you devise will be broken. In the off chance you do develop an uncrackable code (an oxymoron of course) it will necessarily be so invasive as to drive players (such as myself) away from the game.
It is the responsibility of a given server administrator to administrate their server as they see fit.
If they want to let cheaters run rampant, that's their decision.
If they want to skillban all but the most incompetent players, that's their decision.
If they want to force a subset of the community onto aliens when there are 4 marines and 7 aliens playing, that's their decision.
If they want to reserve slots for the most intelligent and skilled players, that's their decision.
And if they want to get rid of cheaters, which any reasonable admin must at some level desire to do, that's their decision.
I have little to no preconceptions about UWE's design strategy for catching cheaters, but I implore you to consider the points made above before spending precious development hours building a system that will necessarily be either impotently flawed, or intrusive, and overbearing.
Before anyone gets the wrong idea let me make two points crystal:
<!--coloro:cyan--><span style="color:cyan"><!--/coloro-->First, if it's not obvious already, I believe in the depth of a game before almost anything else. Depth is utterly shattered by cheating,<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> and while I believe that scripting is a reasonable level of customization (this is not a scripting discussion, I'm speaking in terms of my opinion and belief), real cheating such as speedhacking, esp (wall hacks), aimbots or the more insidious toggles, and even white walls and spikes are all terrible elements of gameplay. Speaking purely in terms of game design, they subtract more fun from the collective experience than they add, which makes them a negative gameplay element.
<!--coloro:lime--><span style="color:lime"><!--/coloro-->Second, VAC does not stop cheating.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> While most of the complaints are simply due to a lack of skill on the part of the "victim" of an aimbot or what have you, there are <b>a few</b> actual instances of cheating still left. Several players still aimbot without <b>any</b> repercussion from Valve's system.
The point I want to make most in this thread is that <b>it is not a game designer's job to arbitrate cheating in that game</b>.
Take baseball for instance. The designers of baseball way back when it was first implemented would have set out to create a series of rules. Breaking these rules constitutes bad sportsmanship, but more interested parties (namely the referees) are the ones to actually enforce the rules and mitigate cheating.
<b>It is arrogant to think that an algorithm can replace the watchful eye of a referee.</b> It won't work, because whatever system you devise will be broken. In the off chance you do develop an uncrackable code (an oxymoron of course) it will necessarily be so invasive as to drive players (such as myself) away from the game.
It is the responsibility of a given server administrator to administrate their server as they see fit.
If they want to let cheaters run rampant, that's their decision.
If they want to skillban all but the most incompetent players, that's their decision.
If they want to force a subset of the community onto aliens when there are 4 marines and 7 aliens playing, that's their decision.
If they want to reserve slots for the most intelligent and skilled players, that's their decision.
And if they want to get rid of cheaters, which any reasonable admin must at some level desire to do, that's their decision.
I have little to no preconceptions about UWE's design strategy for catching cheaters, but I implore you to consider the points made above before spending precious development hours building a system that will necessarily be either impotently flawed, or intrusive, and overbearing.
Comments
<!--coloro:#FF0000--><span style="color:#FF0000"><!--/coloro--><!--sizeo:3--><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo--><!--fonto:Franklin Gothic Medium--><span style="font-family:Franklin Gothic Medium"><!--/fonto-->Developer DOESN'T create Anti-Cheat system, or creates a very very basic one...<!--fontc--></span><!--/fontc--><!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec--><!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--><ul><li>Hacks and Bots start to pop up immediately, they aren't detectable without close supervision.</li><li>Admins start banning users of bots and hacks.</li><li>Players go into Wolf-crying frenzy.</li><li>Admins cannot keep up with requests to ban/monitor server.</li><li>Only choice: Hire/entrust more admins.</li><li>Server closes.</li></ul><!--coloro:#2E8B57--><span style="color:#2E8B57"><!--/coloro--><!--sizeo:3--><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo--><!--fonto:Franklin Gothic Medium--><span style="font-family:Franklin Gothic Medium"><!--/fonto-->Developer DOES create a substantial, or implement existing Anti-Cheat method...<!--fontc--></span><!--/fontc--><!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec--><!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--><ul><li>Players feel safe that others are not cheating</li><li>Few Hacks and Bots pop up over time.</li><li>Few Admins spot this, hand over server logs, I.P Addresses, etc. to Anti-Cheat community.</li><li>Updates and Game-wide bans are made.</li><li>Server stays open.</li></ul>... So, we have a situation where many low-budget and independent (some of the best) servers will be forced to password or close the server completely, if UWE decide to 'let the admins deal' with cheating. So you can clearly see that a few weeks to months and updates regularly in regards to anti-cheat is a far better option for the players... the cash flow... and the general opinion of the game.
Imagine a website like "Gametrailers.com" or "IGN" reviewing a MULTIPLAYER ONLY video game and concluding that although the game in concept and closed session is very fun and innovative, when playing with the general public it becomes a nightmarish festival of cheating and crying wolf so the game is impossible to enjoy. Sales wouldn't rocket from that kind of review <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
Google "The Warden".
<!--quoteo(post=1683266:date=Jul 13 2008, 03:53 PM:name=killkrazy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(killkrazy @ Jul 13 2008, 03:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1683266"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Hacks and Bots start to pop up immediately, they aren't detectable without close supervision.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You should define what you mean by hacks and bots. I'll assume you mean aimbot and esp primarily. Both of these are possible with VAC, which is considered to be a fairly extensive anti-cheat system by many. Also, close supervision isn't really required, since a simple demo can be taken of cheating, emailed to a <b>good</b> admin, and scanned or viewed for cheats. It doesn't take that much effort, and can be done while eating lunch. The ban can then be added with a single command line. It's fairly painless.
<!--quoteo(post=1683266:date=Jul 13 2008, 03:53 PM:name=killkrazy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(killkrazy @ Jul 13 2008, 03:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1683266"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Players go into Wolf-crying frenzy.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Even with VAC players are still in a constant witch hunt for the people they can't beat. bad administrators will always be bad administrators, and they will modify their servers in stupid ways to appease dumb people who can't accept that their ways of playing a game don't always work, and might sometimes need to be modified. Trying to argue that this will change with a slick algorithm is ludicrous.
<!--quoteo(post=1683266:date=Jul 13 2008, 03:53 PM:name=killkrazy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(killkrazy @ Jul 13 2008, 03:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1683266"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Admins cannot keep up with requests to ban/monitor server.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe they shouldn't run a server if they don't have 15 minutes to ban a cheater.
<!--quoteo(post=1683266:date=Jul 13 2008, 03:53 PM:name=killkrazy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(killkrazy @ Jul 13 2008, 03:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1683266"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Only choice: Hire/entrust more admins.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm an admin on plenty of servers, you don't need to hire anyone - people do it for free. Adding more admins also grows your community, especially if they have a knack for politics or marketing.
<!--quoteo(post=1683266:date=Jul 13 2008, 03:53 PM:name=killkrazy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(killkrazy @ Jul 13 2008, 03:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1683266"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Server closes.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A server would not be likely to close due to the reasons you've mentioned.
I believe your vision of the negative aspects of admin-based cheat mitigation are flawed.
<!--quoteo(post=1683266:date=Jul 13 2008, 03:53 PM:name=killkrazy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(killkrazy @ Jul 13 2008, 03:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1683266"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Players feel safe that others are not cheating<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's nice. Their feelings have nothing to do with reality except in the most developer-intensive and player-intrusive systems, and even then the system can easily fail.
<!--quoteo(post=1683266:date=Jul 13 2008, 03:53 PM:name=killkrazy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(killkrazy @ Jul 13 2008, 03:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1683266"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Few Hacks and Bots pop up over time.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nope. Unless you implement something like Blizzard did with reading its players' open documents, you're not going to achieve this. Even if you did, NS2 will not be an account-based game, at least not nearly to the extent that World of Warcraft is, and as such, the cheat mitigation will be much less effective, if a little more profitable.
Wow that's another great point. Putting this much power in the developers' hands creates an antitrust problem, and even though I don't think UWE would abuse it, they could easily be tempted to ban players for the silliest reasons, because it would make them money. This would at the very least be a constant background noise to their decision making.
Also, UWE does not have the manpower to even manufacture a massively multiplayer game at this point, let alone to run a project like The Warden effectively, especially when there's money involved.
<!--quoteo(post=1683266:date=Jul 13 2008, 03:53 PM:name=killkrazy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(killkrazy @ Jul 13 2008, 03:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1683266"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Few Admins spot this, hand over server logs, I.P Addresses, etc. to Anti-Cheat community.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're saying that admins will respect Demo Detectives? Without naming names, there are a fair subset of administrators even now who see DD as a group of hackers, and selectively agree with them only when it fits their bias.
<!--quoteo(post=1683266:date=Jul 13 2008, 03:53 PM:name=killkrazy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(killkrazy @ Jul 13 2008, 03:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1683266"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Updates and Game-wide bans are made.
Server stays open.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
These goals would be better accomplished, and with far less effort to UWE, by letting administrators do their jobs, rather than trying to automate extraneous functionality instead of just making a great game.
Your premises are flawed, and result in faulty conclusions. With that said, please understand that I respect that you even have specific premises (it's more than most people are willing to bother with), and I appreciate your post.
...
Hmm, I'll use this accidental post to state: Without any kind of cheat prevention, the "aimbot" and "wallhack" or "brightmodels" could be the least of your worries.
Hackers are very smart, and usually pretty malicious.
I don't know if you think you are extraordinarily intelligent or just ignorant, but the vast majority of people aren't incredibly bright... those are the ones we need to protect.
I will leave it at: the rewards of making a decent anti-cheating system glaringly out-weigh the risks when you are running a serious BUSINESS.
Google is tiresome, and you sent me on a mean hunt. I had no need to learn about a Anthony Trollope novel...
I should've skipped the Google suggestion and go straight to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warden_(software)" target="_blank">Wikipedia</a>.
So, I still am wondering. Warden sounds like a pretty ideal system to me. Only people doing unjust activities would suffer from a program that scans other active programs. I don't think there's a need for such an extensive program in NS2, but there's no reason for a fair player to fear it. Except maybe an abnormally suspicious person. <i>Oh no, they know I'm running AIM! Certainly they're going to copy my buddy list and find a way to make a profit off it!</i> (lol)
VAC's security is incredibly weak. But a server without VAC is more like an invitation to hackers. The banning of cheaters is quite a pleasure (knowing the extremes to which they can destroy an experience), so I favor the most optimal security that can be developed.
Your point was that you believe that some form of automatic hacking detection system is a better idea for the business than letting administrators handle their own servers. I disagreed with the point, and you failed to retort any of my arguments.
And no, I don't think I'm just ignorant.
<!--quoteo(post=1683280:date=Jul 13 2008, 07:06 PM:name=TerraGamerX)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TerraGamerX @ Jul 13 2008, 07:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1683280"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Google is tiresome, and you sent me on a mean hunt.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry? I would have had to go on the same mean hunt myself to answer your question.
The reason the Warden is problematic is that if you have any information (like email addresses, a title of a novel, a masters thesis that is highly descriptive of a new technology) in your document filenames, it will be read and sent to blizzard. I don't know what else it does, but that alone is enough to make me shy away from it. Also the fact that Blizzard didn't tell its players it was using any system of that nature, which perhaps is the greater problem with its implementation than even what it does, putting it (in my mind) in the same category as spyware, but far more insidious, as well as expensive.
EDIT: You both seems to be somewhat enraptured in the concept of "ban the bad cheaters!" and while I agree with you in principle, I don't think you've thought it through in practice - it really isn't as simple as "let's put as much anti-hack in the game as possible". Maybe I'm drawing a faulty conclusion, if I am, help me understand your point of view better.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->a decent anti-cheating system<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not everybody in the world has an abundance of free time, and what little free time people have, I'm sure it'd be best spent not babysitting servers.
And the people who do have an abundance of free time are either the hackers themselves, or kids who wouldn't be adequate at governing a server properly.
Everything in the world gets automated. Spotting bad apples, reading post-codes on mail, painting cars. Why?.. Not because humans are incapable... but because it saves time, and effort.
Time is money.
Some bad apples still sneak through, some post-codes are illegible, some cheaters do avoid detection... but these can swiftly be dealt with by a few individuals after the automation has done it's job.
There ARE different ways of going about it. <ul><li>Let the players govern themselves. </li><li>Let cheaters play happily (and crash servers and other malicious deeds). </li><li>Let Administrators be warned that having a server constitutes a full-time baby-sitting job. </li><li>Tell people if they can't handle cheaters/hackers, don't play (fascist?)</li></ul>But you know what they say: The most simple explanation is usually the correct one. (from a customer's POV)
And with so many other games using Anti-Cheating detection, I don't think some angry individual who doesn't work in the industry (and obviously has far too much on his computer to hide from any kind of file-modifying-monitoring-algorithm) has hit the holy-grail of multiplayer cheating prevention <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" />
Having said that, ideally it would be possible to create an engine and game that can't be significantly hacked. Does UWE have the time, personnel, and resources to do this? Nope, I really doubt it. (But let's see how this new engine turns out...) Maybe if NS2 is really successful, perhaps there will be enough resources to consider enhancing anti-cheat.
In the mean time, why not set up something like an official Demo Detective division within UWE? If a certain number of players in-game vote to investigate a particular player's account, then the account is flagged and servers record demos of that player's actions. The demos get reviewed by a UWE-appointed volunteer professional player (or 2 out of a team of volunteers) and a decision made to ban the account / suspend the account / request second opinion / do nothing. All decisions would have a global impact on all NS2 servers. Thereafter, if banned/suspended, the player in question will be given a chance to appeal the decision with the risk of being banned in some more severe way (hardware ban?) if the appeal is found to be unwarranted by an appeals committee.
I'd think that, as a temporary solution, administrative vigilance coupled with a UWE endorsed demo detective unit would discourage most cheaters. Sure, there could be a few false negatives - for this there should be a good appeals committee who should really take interest in genuine appeals.
...
But you know what they say: The most simple explanation is usually the correct one.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Perhaps I'm wrong then. You seem to speak with some degree of authority, so why don't you explain the exact specifications of the "simple and elegant" system you are defending, so that I can better understand your point of view, and perhaps modify my own?
I highly doubt UWE can officially support a system like that. As a developer and a company they've got quite a bit more of responsibility on banhammering than a non-profit 3rd party group. Something like Demo Detectives Banlist plugin is the best I can think of.
I think the demo viewing removes only a part of the problem though. It easily catches all the newbies using aimbot and ect, but it's a real pain to see whether a smart and experienced player is getting and unfair advantage. For example in Starcraft Euro scene has been hurt bad by the hacking. A few months ago quite a few very skilled players got banned from the most leagues when a new detection method was introduced. Some of them had even performed well on LAN tournaments. At that point a lot of people get a little paranoid and it hurts the whole game. So, I wouldn't rely completely on demo viewing either, no matter how good the viewers are.
I'd say its good to give anti-cheat some though while designing the game, but I don't think its worth focusing the dev time. I guess the optimal situation would be to have a engine that isn't completely a walk in the park to hack and yet it should give 3rd party anti-cheat programs some room to work. Most likely it's quite difficult to get both on the same engine, since anti-cheats seem to hook the engine the same way as hacks do.
However i agree in part with kill crazy, we need some sort of dev anti cheat system just to send the message that cheating isnt acceptable. It doesnt need to be fancy, or even very effective but if theres no anti cheat mechanisim then it may send the wrong message.
<!--quoteo(post=1683269:date=Jul 13 2008, 05:21 PM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Jul 13 2008, 05:21 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1683269"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><Thinks developer anti-cheat programs are NOT necessary><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think you both have reasonable positions.
That said, I'd rather the devs work on other things than their own anti-cheat monitor. I've played a lot of NS, even before VAC was enabled for it, and I've only seen a few cheaters. I've always felt the problem was blown out of proportion. If it came down to matchmaking system vs. anti-cheat monitor, I'd take the matchmaking system hands down.
The problem with admins is there is too many smug admins period who can't tell the difference between skill and hacks. A couple of good playes I know are now banned from every remaining server except one or two from supposedly hacking, and these arn't even the top players. One admin even posted a video of him supposedly hacking and he was playing so poorly that the title of the video should have been 'lets laugh at this nub' but instead they banned him because the servers are all run by 10 year old little kids.
Retarded admins is largly responsible for death of NS. Wow is sadly the number one death of NS but #2 IMO is admins.
So I would suggestion a combination of anti cheat programs and a strong accurate server side recording program.
When someone is actually cheating it's so obvious that it doesn't even need to be said. I just leave the server and join a different one and that doesn't bother me because it's such a rare occurrence. To put it in perspective, I think I saw 4 or 5 cheaters in NS and in COD4 I've seen 2 so far.
You act like this is a bad thing. The best anti-cheat HL1 ever had was "cheating death" which was able to use half-life to perform client side file scans to check for common cheats. After one of Valves patches the scanning ability was removed which crippled cheating death and it never really recovered to its full potential. Either way client side file scanning is still a valid option IMHO.
On a side note: With application virtualization becoming a workable reality, perhaps the future of anti cheating is virtualizing core game files where their state can't be changed.
When someone is actually cheating it's so obvious that it doesn't even need to be said. I just leave the server and join a different one and that doesn't bother me because it's such a rare occurrence. To put it in perspective, I think I saw 4 or 5 cheaters in NS and in COD4 I've seen 2 so far.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
well i wouldn't roll your eyes too much because there was hackers in the winning clan of one CAL season. I know this because I know one of the members of the clan. I don't recall if anyone of the winning members used hacks, but they knowing tried to cover up and deny one of their members used it who was caught and banned.
But still agreeing that most people accused of cheating arn't and that's a problem too.
I don't really think that's a problem... the problem is devoting lots of time towards an anti-cheat system that will eventually get cracked anyway. Let the server admins ban who they want to ban, they pay for the server after all, but I can't say I see the point in devoting a lot of time towards a complex anti-cheat system.
Or we could continue to discuss ephemeral conjecture for the entertainment value of arguing over the internet. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/nerd-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="::nerdy::" border="0" alt="nerd-fix.gif" />
Or we could continue to discuss ephemeral conjecture for the entertainment value of arguing over the internet. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/nerd-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="::nerdy::" border="0" alt="nerd-fix.gif" /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"Arguing over the internet is pointless, so I win at this internet argument" isn't really sound logic.
I rebutted your original post with some good reasons why spending time on Anti-Cheat modules is worth the money in the view of the developer.
Bar from glancing comments about how hackers and cheaters can and will ruin the fun for everybody who plays the game, I only pointed out the obvious reasons why any multiplayer devoted-game developer would spend a reasonable amount of time implementing it.
There are so many forms and ways of cheating... or just griefing (with third party tools/hooks, not to be confused with being a jerk) that probably you or I don't even know of them all, and if given the opportunity, the filthy mother-licker hackers will develop even more nasty and fun-spoiling programs.
NS isn't a tactical shooter , either... you cannot compare the possibilities of it's hacks/cheats to that of CS/TF/WoW
+ I love Locallyunscene... i think I remember other funny posts like that from some of Domining's Topics <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" />
<b>Killkrazy</b>, I challenge you to find an FPS that's been ruined by hackers. I'll also accept RTS's, but sales/reputation must have suffered substantially for me to consider a game ruined.
<b>Radix</b>, I agree that anti-cheat software is a something that UWE should avoid so they can spend the money on other things, but how would you make the job easier for admins? Even good servers are not admin'ed 24-7 and the few times I have seen cheaters they've cleaned out servers quickly. How would you, or how would you expect the devs to, assuage the fears of members like <b>killkrazy</b> who has a rather common view of cheating? Would you leave it completely up to admin groups that share ban lists{was looking for this topic, but couldn't find it} or maybe have UWE give them an endorsement of some type?
There is no need for something advance to be developed, as long as there is something. An example can be my neighborhood itself. Most houses are without a modern security system. Instead all entrances to all houses has a silver sticker that warns criminals of the "neighborhood watch" program. There's no neighborhood watch. There's no security. I only know people in one of the houses around my house. That's not going to stop a genuine criminal from doing what they intend to. But the foolish people with influential minds that got there by influence will go away the same way they came.