Slashdot Mirror


Blizzard Bans Speed Hackers from WoW

Voodoo Extreme has the world that Blizzard has already banned several accounts for Speed Hacking, a type of cheat that allows a character to move far faster than it should. From the article: "Those individuals who were caught using the speed hack have been banned from the game and have had their accounts closed. We must stress once again that we are opposed to hacking and cheating of any kind and are dedicated to maintaining a fair environment in our games." Adios, punks

186 comments

  1. Hope they had definite proof... by Sancho · · Score: 5, Informative

    Generally speed hacks work by sending packets in such a way as to simulate periods of extreme latency between the client and the server. This leads to a bit of a bad fork for Blizzard...The two most likely ways that they banned people were checking for constant extreme latency (which could occur) in which case they may have banned people who were not cheating, or they tested for programs running on the user's machine, which is a slippery road towards privacy invasion.

    1. Re:Hope they had definite proof... by k_187 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually, it had something to do with fooling the game that you were on a griffin, when you weren't, speeding you up like 50x or something. I saw somebody link instructions to it on the forums (which I read because I am obsessed with the game, yet am unable to afford it.)

      --
      11 was a racehorse
      12 was 12
      1111 Race
      12112
    2. Re:Hope they had definite proof... by f4llenang3l · · Score: 2, Informative

      I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, that Blizzard lost a lawsuit against them in Germany for the incorporation of hard-drive scans in the internation al version of Starcraft? that reported back to the Blizzard server to let them know if you had any illegal copies of their software on your machine. Long story short, privacy invasion wouldn't be a first for them.

      --

      ---
      she won't let you fly, but she might let you sing
    3. Re:Hope they had definite proof... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most speed hacks involve manipulating clock speed on your computer (ticks), not by simulating lag.

    4. Re:Hope they had definite proof... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or they could just check the character's position at regular intervals. If the character doesn't have enough speed to get from point A to point B in that amount of time, then they get logged. Not that difficult, and you don't have to spy on the user's pc.

    5. Re:Hope they had definite proof... by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Erm, shouldn't all movement be server-calculated in an MMO? The moment you trust the client on more than player input is the moment you open yourself up for cheats.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    6. Re:Hope they had definite proof... by ASkGNet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That would be the ideal case, only trust the client for input, and render everything on the server, then send the image to the client (the client is nothing more than a glorified utility which takes keystrokes and displays images).

      However, on the Internet, nothing is ideal, and lag is a major thing to account for. One must also care about the server load. Sure, it's possible to make a client adhering to the above demands, however:
      a) it would not be playable, with the possible exception of a high-speed LAN - where ping times are low and bandwidth is high
      b) the server load will skyrocket with the number of active players

      Therefore, some tradeoffs must be added - such as making the client render the world, handling some tasks (such as basic movement prediction and interpolation, for laggy environments - this is what causes "rubber bounding" in laggy times)

    7. Re:Hope they had definite proof... by SyncNine · · Score: 1

      OK -- So his waste of time by investigating something that was entertaining to him is a BIGGER waste of time than your COMPLETE waste of time by being an absolute troll? Stupid, stupid, stupid Anonymous Coward.

      --
      To the darkened skies once more, and ever onward.
    8. Re:Hope they had definite proof... by Mornelithe · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      So entertainment had by trolling on Slashdot is less entertaining than reading about a game you can't play? How about replying to said troll, or replying to the person who replied to the troll, and so on?

      Besides, you played right into the troll's hands by getting angry and replying. He's probably rubbing one off to your post right now.

      --

      I've come for the woman, and your head.

    9. Re:Hope they had definite proof... by Vermifax · · Score: 2, Informative

      The lawsuit was in California, they didn't lose they settled.

      The agreement was they wouldn't upload information about the person without their consent.

      Reading the current EULA for WoW it would seem that consent is given by clicking accept.

      Of course now you're into the undecided realm of click EULA's.

      --

      Vermifax

      Logout
    10. Re:Hope they had definite proof... by BlueCodeWarrior · · Score: 1

      Some of us (read:me) browse Slashdot on their college network (cost:0) with our donated-from-a-relative Pentium 2s (cost:0) and have no job because of studies (income:0)

      Not everyone pays for everything...I would love to play WoW but with no source of income, I can't afford it. You can't make assumptions about someone's situation over the Internet.

    11. Re:Hope they had definite proof... by Da+VinMan · · Score: 1

      I remember being a poor student too, so I sympathize with your situation. However, think of how much time and money you'll save by NOT getting into WOW. Small consolation maybe, but consider this. Even when you CAN monetarily afford the game you may STILL NOT be able to "afford" it. That is, you won't be able to afford the time to play it.

      Online games of all stripes can suck your life away. I discovered this by playing MUDs and through the first beta test cycle of Asheron's Call. After that, I swore them off, and haven't looked back.

      So, I guess you'll have to stick with your low cost Starcraft/CS/TA/whatever works addiction anyway. Honestly, most of us gamers with decent rigs still spend half our time in the oldies anyway.

      --
      Please mod this post only if you think others should/n't read this. I have enough ego^H^H^Hkarma. Thanks!
    12. Re:Hope they had definite proof... by llefler · · Score: 1

      and render everything on the server, then send the image to the client

      That takes things to the extreme. The server needs to validate communications between it and the clients. It should run a sanity check to see if the commands from the client are reasonable. But having the server render the image would be a huge waste of resources. Instead, it should have a language that it can use to tell the client to render objects based on server commands. Similar to the way Citrix, RDP, and X do.

      this is what causes "rubber bounding" in laggy times

      That's rubber banding. IE. you see your character move, the server is lagged and doesn't, the server corrects your location and you 'rubber band' back to a previous position. I haven't see this happen on WoW, but I have experienced 'lag turn'. This is where you turn your character, you see no effect, so you try again. Then when the server catches up and you start to move, you head off in the wrong direction.

      --
      It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit. -- Harry Truman
    13. Re:Hope they had definite proof... by Jaeph · · Score: 1

      "The two most likely ways that they banned people were checking for constant extreme latency (which could occur) in which case they may have banned people who were not cheating, or they tested for programs running on the user's machine, which is a slippery road towards privacy invasion."

      Nobody said that blizzard can't use their brains and eyeballs too. If someone is always lagging when they're trying to escape, there's a problem.

      -Jeff

      --
      Please learn the difference between a dissenting opinion and a troll before you moderate.
    14. Re:Hope they had definite proof... by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 1

      and render everything on the server, then send the image to the client

      That takes things to the extreme. The server needs to validate communications between it and the clients. It should run a sanity check to see if the commands from the client are reasonable. But having the server render the image would be a huge waste of resources. Instead, it should have a language that it can use to tell the client to render objects based on server commands. Similar to the way Citrix, RDP, and X do.


      In essence, this already happens.
      The server tells the client that Player X is on position Y, looking to direction Z. The client has all the models it needs to render Player X for you.
      Now a desirable feature would be to give the client only the information it needs at the moment. For instance, transmit only the positions of the objects that are visible to the player at the moment. *Poof*, no more wallhacks.

      Of course, this means extra server side calculations to determine what the client should see, and most MMORPG companies seem to consider this too expensive.

      --
      C - the footgun of programming languages
  2. Well.. by Krakerz · · Score: 1

    Some people never learn... :/

  3. Apart from moving around faster... by happyhippy · · Score: 1

    ...would the speed hack give an unfair advantage in combat or any other part in the game?
    Article doesnt say.

    1. Re:Apart from moving around faster... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yeah, speed hackers are impossible to kill. If they get in trouble, they run, and you'll never catch them.

    2. Re:Apart from moving around faster... by sexysasian · · Score: 0

      Shiz... Forget running from battle, the big advocacy I can see for speed hacking is avoid the ULTRA annoying walk from the respawn point to your dead body.

    3. Re:Apart from moving around faster... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you find that SO annoying you could just get raised at the graveyard. Considering the alternative between spending 3 minutes running back to your corpse or losing 2 hours worth of experience from dying like in certain game I'd take the former any day.

    4. Re:Apart from moving around faster... by bpd1069 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah, speed hackers are impossible to kill. If they get in trouble, they run, and you'll never catch them.

      Especially when they start bunnyhopping... god I hate that...

      --
      --
    5. Re:Apart from moving around faster... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or play as a Night Elf, since we become wisps when we die and can therefore move around really quickly.

    6. Re:Apart from moving around faster... by Cyclone_TBW · · Score: 0

      If you engage in Player vs. Player combat then this would give you the ability to attack players from any range and do damage and instantly get out of range so they could not cast spells or abilities on them. Also you could move around groups and flank them giving you a tactical advantage. Sun Tzu always said one of the greatest advangtages in combat is too be able to fight on ground of your choosing.

      --






      Click HERE
  4. Oh I get it now. by BaronSprite · · Score: 5, Funny

    The lag wasn't the game going slowly, it was just everyone going faster then I was. Damn kids and their speed hacks... and makeout parties...

    1. Re:Oh I get it now. by radimvice · · Score: 2, Funny

      Damn kids and their speed hacks... and makeout parties...

      These 'damn kids' get their kicks by making their gnome avatars perform goofy animated dances on command. Speed hacks is pretty much it.

  5. Maybe now people will trust Blizzard... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    One of the complaints I heard frequently on various forums was people claiming that they'd "never play World of Warcraft because Blizzard games always get hacked and Blizzard never does anything about it." Hopefully this will convince them that Blizzard is indeed being proactive about preventing cheaters.

    Unfortunately, I expect that instead they'll just take it as evidence that World of Warcraft is easily hacked and use that as a reason why they refuse to play.

    But I'm glad Blizzard is announcing this, rather than the approach a certain other MMORPG took of saying "oh, there's nothing wrong, there are no bots anymore, we took care of them all" despite groups of players who seem not to mind doing the same thing repeatedly 24/7 and never respond when you try and talk with them...

    1. Re:Maybe now people will trust Blizzard... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      One of the complaints I heard frequently on various forums was people claiming that they'd "never play World of Warcraft because Blizzard games always get hacked and Blizzard never does anything about it."

      Where have you been hearing this complaint? Blizzard is the ONLY company I know of that regularly cracks down on hackers/cheaters.

    2. Re:Maybe now people will trust Blizzard... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personally, I think it was people who had already decided they weren't going to play World of Warcraft and were now looking for an excuse as to why they weren't going to. For some reason they couldn't just say "I don't want to play it" they had to get in a shot at Blizzard too.

      Sort of like the people here who refuse to play Blizzard games due to the BNetD thing.

    3. Re:Maybe now people will trust Blizzard... by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      Hopefully this will convince them that Blizzard is indeed being proactive about preventing cheaters. How is responding AFTER the hack being proactive?

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    4. Re:Maybe now people will trust Blizzard... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Simple: Proactive = actively searching for these things.
      Reactive = banning people after they've been reported.

      My understanding is that Blizzard is actively looking for cheaters - taking the proactive approach, as opposed making other players report them, which is the reactive approach.

    5. Re:Maybe now people will trust Blizzard... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reading comprehension for teh win!!1

    6. Re:Maybe now people will trust Blizzard... by forkazoo · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      So, you are saying that anybody who might hack at some point in the future should have their account banned before they do anything? Cuz... That's everybody.

    7. Re:Maybe now people will trust Blizzard... by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      You are reading extra material into my comment. I was simply pointing out the definition of 'proactive' is to act beforehand.

      Pro-active, in my mind, would be to build in anti-cheats, or to strongly remind folks that any cheating will result in a ban without compensation. Banning someone after they cheat is reactive.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    8. Re:Maybe now people will trust Blizzard... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They already do that.

      How do you think they caught the speed hackers?

    9. Re:Maybe now people will trust Blizzard... by forkazoo · · Score: 1

      Well, yeah... They build in lots of anti-cheats. That's part of the job. But, nothing is 100% perfect, and sometimes somebody else finds your bug before you do. I'm still confused about what exactly you want them to do.

      "Hey, Fred, the magic 8 ball seems to think that evil hackers are going to find a bug on line 278 in menu.c - better fix it right away!"

      In this context, the only reasonable definition of being proactive with regard to cheaters means keeping an eye out foir them, rather than waiting to hear complaints. Fixing bugs in the code will go on regardless of any concern about cheating.

    10. Re:Maybe now people will trust Blizzard... by brkello · · Score: 1

      If you think there won't be bots in WoW, then you are an idiot. Everyone knew there were bots in FFXI, and they did punish those who were using bots. Did they do it as fast as people wanted? No, they did not. But trying to make WoW out as better...give me a break. There were no hacks like this at all in FFXI while I played. Bots are going to be in every MMORPG...period.

      --
      Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
    11. Re:Maybe now people will trust Blizzard... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And, assuming you're a US player, you played a year old (actually, year and a half) game if you played at the PC release or a two year old game if you started at the PS2 release.

      FFXI on release was bug-filled too. It took them up until Rise of the Zilart, which just so happened to correspond with the US release, to get the game nearly bug-free.

  6. solutions by name773 · · Score: 0, Troll

    is blizzard going to fix their program?

  7. Actually... by ironwill96 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Several people used FRAPS to record people that were using SpeedHacks in the game. So they were not banning people who had not visibly evidenced this behavior several times and been reported by users.

    And they were not faking a Gryphon flight while on the ground, they were faking lag to the client making the server lag-o-port them great distances. This is using a method posted on the BlizzHackers website forums.

    --
    "To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." - Tennyson
    1. Re:Actually... by C0rinthian · · Score: 1

      This sounds like they've made some very bad logistical mistakes if they trust the client with ANYTHING besides displaying the current game state and taking player input. The client should just be a pretty interface to the server database. Nothing important should be client side.

    2. Re:Actually... by NeMon'ess · · Score: 4, Informative

      No they made a calculated choice. In most OLRPGs, getting attacked while having lag is lethal. It's very frustrating for the dead player. In WOW, when lag happens, the player can run away and they're untouchable. NPCs, monsters, and players freeze in place or stop appearing. When the lag ends, the client sends the player's new position to the server. The server effectively teleports the player to the reported position. A bystander at the new position would see a player just appear there. This has created a cheat, in that when lag happens it's possible to run past high-level enemies who might be guarding treasure. I think Blizzard made the right choice considering how much I've hated getting lag killed in the past.

    3. Re:Actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't actually write anything do you?

      Carmack has commented on why the above is just stupid (and impratical), despite the nice sound to it.

      Amazing how ignorance doesn't stop people from giving advice.

    4. Re:Actually... by Edgewize · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Sure, everything would be server-side if there were such things as unlimited bandwidth, unlimited processor resources, and zero-latency connections.

      In reality, collision-detection and movement logic is better handled on the client side. Nobody wants a 150ms delay between when they push the "forward" key and when they start to move. And the computational cost of doing terrain collision on the server for 5000+ players is prohibitive.

      The only thing that Blizzard can do is monitor for data anomolies, such as position updates that are an impossible distance apart for the given time interval. And that is probably how they are catching speed hackers.

    5. Re:Actually... by analog_line · · Score: 1

      However, when there's no real death penalty to speak of, why bother with the invincibility?

    6. Re:Actually... by NeMon'ess · · Score: 1

      Lag death is particularly annoying. It can happen against monsters and players, so it can happen fairly often. If lag effects one person, it's likely to effect a whole group. Thus in a PVP battle things are paused until the lag lessens. Since monsters are immune to lag, it gives the player a disadvantage. Fundamentally, even though the penalty is minor, I've always found lag death such a drag, that not getting penalized when it happens makes more sense. There is a very real disincentive to use lag to cheat by the way. When running to a new location to teleport there when the lag ends, there is no way of knowing what humans or monsters will be there.

    7. Re:Actually... by jafuser · · Score: 1

      Couldn't they fix this problem by ensuring the "lag-o-port" is within a circle defined by the maximum distance possible given the running speed they are capable of? If they exceed this circle (by more than a small epsilon), rubber-band them back to the circle at next update.

      --
      Please consider making an automatic monthly recurring donation to the EFF
  8. stupid lame cheaters by cyrax777 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Whats the point of cheating in a online game. It justs fucks with the Balance for everyone. And why the hell cheat in a gane you have to pay to play for!. If just wanted to let a bot run around Id just run something like progress quest since it pretty much amounts to the same thing.

    1. Re:stupid lame cheaters by antifoidulus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The whole reason I hate online gaming: For some people their online persona defines them as a human being, and they take it way too seriously. It's a game for crying out loud, it doesn't matter if your dwarf mage is level 23 and can slay the yellow panda of Azerbajn if you aren't having fun.

    2. Re:stupid lame cheaters by rpillala · · Score: 4, Insightful

      All online games I've played have an element that cares more about winning than playing. If they can find a shortcut to winning they'll do it.

      --
      When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
    3. Re:stupid lame cheaters by superpulpsicle · · Score: 1

      I am sick and tired of cheaters. I don't think Blizzard games are nearly as bad as Enemy Terrorities, wolfenstein, UT2004. Dare I say counterstrike.

      The worst thing are those half cheating, scriptable moves that can never be banned. Like auto-lie-down when near enemies. Or using adrenalines and refilling on med packs and ammo all in one motion. These are the worst people to play against.

    4. Re:stupid lame cheaters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The worst thing are those half cheating, scriptable moves that can never be banned. Like auto-lie-down when near enemies. Or using adrenalines and refilling on med packs and ammo all in one motion. These are the worst people to play against.

      Rambo medics should be banned, period. They turn the game into Quake.

      Let us not forget the Quake-engine speed hack, where you can lock your FPS to a certain frame rate and be able to move something like 10% faster -- and then you can bunny hop up to about 50% faster. It's unbannable and can't be reliably detected just watching.

      Of course, the basic problem with the most WWII themed games is that everyone has sub machine guns instead of rifles, which drastically changes the tactics involved. And yet, the maps are designed as though people use rifles, because that's the way the real world battlefield looked.

    5. Re:stupid lame cheaters by radimvice · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And why the hell cheat in a gane you have to pay to play for!.

      Because with companies like IGE that buy and sell accounts and virtual currency/items, effectively creating real-world exchange rates for virtual money, people can make real profits off of cheats, exploits or techniques that improve their efficiency relative to the rest of the players.

    6. Re:stupid lame cheaters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, it's called life. That attitude is not limited to online games. There are quite a few people who care about money, fame, power, etc.

    7. Re:stupid lame cheaters by Jormundgandr · · Score: 1

      Please God let the yellow panda of Azerbaijan be a real character. I would buy the game even though I can't play online.

      --
      -sig removed for tax purposes-
    8. Re:stupid lame cheaters by tholomyes · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sure, but the sellers might well be banned, too:

      From the "Terms Of Use" for WoW:

      Section 7. Selling of Items

      Remember, at the outset of these Terms of Use, where we discussed how you were "licensed" the right to use World of Warcraft, and that your license was "limited"? Well, here is one of the more important areas where these license limitations come into effect. Note that Blizzard Entertainment either owns, or has exclusively licensed, all of the content which appears in World of Warcraft. Therefore, no one has the right to "sell" Blizzard Entertainment's content, except Blizzard Entertainment! So Blizzard Entertainment does not recognize any property claims outside of World of Warcraft of the purported "sale" in the "real world" of anything related to World of Warcraft. Accordingly, you may not sell items for "real" money or trade items for things of value outside of World of Warcraft.

      (Yeah, I read my EULAs.)

      --
      When did the future switch from being a promise to a threat? -C. Palahniuk
    9. Re:stupid lame cheaters by talaphid · · Score: 1

      Because as we all know, noone cheated in a game like Diablo 1 - CURSE IGE!

    10. Re:stupid lame cheaters by MrBigInThePants · · Score: 1

      Because in my experience human beings, especially men/boys, will try to "win" at any sort of competition they are presented with.

      They completely lose the plot and just start competing for the sake of it. It rarely occurs to them that the whole point might not be to compete.
      This appears out personal interactions also.

      I call it the shrivelled penis syndrome: Person is trying to make up for a small penis.

      PS: Ignore my sig...

    11. Re:stupid lame cheaters by Nutcase · · Score: 2, Funny

      This coming from someone named MrBigInThePants :P

    12. Re:stupid lame cheaters by MrBigInThePants · · Score: 1

      Dammit, the PS was suppose to say "please ignore my name"!

      Bah!

      Not that anyone gives a toss, but it is the cynical name my friend used for anyone who thought they were pretty cool. As in: "Well, aren't you Mr Big-in-the-pants then??"

    13. Re:stupid lame cheaters by Moo+Moo+Cow+of+Death · · Score: 1

      Even people like Blacksnow Inc were winning in a case against Mythic until someone found out they were setting up slave sweat shops where people played the game for money...under the law.

    14. Re:stupid lame cheaters by Slime-dogg · · Score: 1

      I don't really understand how you're supposed to win in an online game. The game is persistent, and there is no ultimate goal.

      --
      You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
    15. Re:stupid lame cheaters by rpillala · · Score: 1

      Reach the level cap as quickly as possible. Get the best gear in game as soon as possible. Be able to 1v1 anyone and/or run around areas ganking as many people at least 10 levels below you as possible. There are always goals for these pvp kiddies. BTW not all pvp players are what I call "kiddies" just the ones with no sense of honor who think they're better than you because their character is.

      --
      When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
    16. Re:stupid lame cheaters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [quote]
      It's a game for crying out loud, it doesn't matter if your dwarf mage is level 23 and can slay the yellow panda of Azerbajn if you aren't having fun.
      [/quote]

      Dude, you suck. I totally pwnd that panda as a level 18 mage.
      That panda is teh suxor.
      I am teh keela.

    17. Re:stupid lame cheaters by sindarin2001 · · Score: 1

      Hate to dissapoint you, but there is no yellow panda.

    18. Re:stupid lame cheaters by hypermike · · Score: 1

      Helllooo, dwarves cant be mages... Duh :P

      --
  9. May not be a problem for much longer by MagicDude · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've always thought that this kind of hacking would not be a problem once internet technology gets suitably advanced. Once everyone has super fast internet connections, you wouldn't need to have the program stored on your own system where punks can work at hacking it. All you would do is buy an account, and then everytime you wanted to play, you would download a fresh copy of the program. You play for however you want, and then you log off, and the program is ereased off your computer (or maybe if you're afraid of having a remote computer deleting programs, it can stay on your hard drive). Then the next time you want to play, you download the program again, thus ensuring that you and everyone else is always playing with a non-hacked version of the program. Your character and his equipment would be stored on the server, so that couldn't be hacked either. So the elimination of punks is only a matter of time.

    1. Re:May not be a problem for much longer by gl4ss · · Score: 4, Insightful

      that doesn't really solve anything, as the code is still run on the client side.

      easy solution, if one had infinite network bandwith and speed, would be to make the clients as dumb terminals as possible - with all possible game logic on the servers - so that you would be able to trust the data coming from the client blindly, simply because the client would be only sending stuff like 'button a pressed'.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    2. Re:May not be a problem for much longer by Leffe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Um, no, the hackers would just patch the downloaded program in memory or on disk or however it is stored. They could use some magic algorithm to decide what and where to hack. Child's play.

      The only real solution to stop hacking is to run _everything_ on the server and only let the client render what he sees. The only thing that can not be stopped using that method is bots.

    3. Re:May not be a problem for much longer by f4llenang3l · · Score: 5, Funny

      That would lead to fairly humorous role-playing:
      "F4llenAng3l has entered the store. You may buy:
      A ring - 54 GP
      A Fire Arrow Quiver - 68 GP

      ...

      F4llenAng3l has selected to buy a ring. Please type the text from the image below to complete the purchase, to ensure that you are not a script."

      --

      ---
      she won't let you fly, but she might let you sing
    4. Re:May not be a problem for much longer by Bri3D · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Until someone finds a buffer overflow in the server to change stats, or they fake the server into thinking they re-downloaded the app when really they didn't. Banning cheaters is the best approach, at least for the forseeable future. Though you don't get them all, you get their social network to warn them, which is probably a stronger deterrant then simply trying to keep the cheaters out from a technical standpoint. Sadly, as long as games exist, there will probably be a way for someone to cheat.

    5. Re:May not be a problem for much longer by Leffe · · Score: 1

      Hehe, don't forget about the potential of porn site goers, they will gladly decipher such images ;)

      [insert link to older story]

    6. Re:May not be a problem for much longer by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

      You don't need infinite bandwidth, just enough for the client to receive images and upload keystrokes and mouse commands. Simple.

    7. Re:May not be a problem for much longer by xenocide2 · · Score: 1

      Simple, but latency kills that idea quickly. Especially once you transition this technology to games like Counter-Strike, where 40 ms lag spikes can noticably degrade the system. Not to mention the amount of processing power required to render 16 people's screens for them.

      --
      I Browse at +4 Flamebait

      Open Source Sysadmin

    8. Re:May not be a problem for much longer by Bios_Hakr · · Score: 1

      Either that or randomly insert padding in the executable.

      Personally, I think random hash checks every 5 minutes would go a long way towards catching hackers.

      --
      I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
    9. Re:May not be a problem for much longer by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      for it to be usable for thousands of players, it would very quickly turn to the unrealistic to achieve levels for bandwith and processing power.

      maybe you could send the triangles the player sees with texture info already on the client though within reasonable limits.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    10. Re:May not be a problem for much longer by Foole · · Score: 1

      I believe this cheat can be done without hacking the binary. You just set up a proxy which modifies the data. I don't think your idea solves this problem.

      --
      This is not a turnip.
    11. Re:May not be a problem for much longer by DuckofDeath87 · · Score: 1

      On Runescape, they accually do that.

      Only differance is that they only do it when you sleep, not when you buy things.

    12. Re:May not be a problem for much longer by Leffe · · Score: 1

      A hash check is nothing but a 'cmp' somewhere, unless the client sends a hash of the executable, that is being modified by the server while the program is running, to the server. Of course, the client could just store two states in that case, one patched and executed, and one that is not.

      Simply put, anything that is only checked on the client can be fixed with a 1 byte patch, anything on the server is infallible unless there's a bug or the server is compromised or something.

    13. Re:May not be a problem for much longer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personally, I think random hash checks every 5 minutes would go a long way towards catching hackers.

      How would that help? They'd just switch from modifying the game executable to running a separate process that hooks into the game and modifies its memory, without changing any of the actual game files directly. It's called a "trainer". They've only been around for, oh, twenty years or so...

    14. Re:May not be a problem for much longer by milph · · Score: 1


      I've always thought that this kind of hacking would not be a problem once internet technology gets suitably advanced.


      At which point, the hacking will be alleviated by something indistinguishable from magic?

      --
      -- Chapman's Observation #1: Nothing is ever simple
    15. Re:May not be a problem for much longer by Bullet-Dodger · · Score: 1

      Hell, as long as we're talking about the future, don't let the client render anything. Just get input from them and send them a image of what they see 30 times a second.

  10. not to be a smart ass, but: by rritterson · · Score: 3, Funny

    Why is this news, again? Every MMoRPG has a few cheaters, who get caught and banned. It's like reporting that a 14 year old kid was caught stealing candy at the local corner store and was grounded for it. Whee... It would be news if Blizzard said 'we marvel at the intelligence of these cheaters. We consider them magical beings and will do all we can to accomodate them'

    --
    -Ryan
    AUWYHSTOT (Acronyms are Useless When You Have to Spell Them Out Too)
    1. Re:not to be a smart ass, but: by Dachannien · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, it's the first time since the game went live that Blizzard has taken some action regarding cheaters, for one thing. As popular as WoW is (far more than EQ2, from what I understand), the stance Blizzard takes on cheaters is actually important to a significant portion of the game community. For another thing, the article indicates that speed hacks are already being used in WoW.

      Now, six months down the road, if Blizzard is still banning people for cheating, then it's probably not worthy of another /. post.

      Of course, considering that new developments don't actually have to occur for a story to be revisited on /. ....

    2. Re:not to be a smart ass, but: by Synkronos · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I dunno about you guys, but I read /. to get new information. So, the first time a hack gets used on a new game, I want to hear about it. Next time someone SpeedHacks, keep it to yourselves. But as soon as someone XP hacks, or InstaGib hacks or whatever, I'd like to see a new /. post. Information is king ;)

      --
      Playing poker with a joker and some Uno cards
    3. Re:not to be a smart ass, but: by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      True, but what this also does is send a warning to other cheaters out there that it won't be tolerated, and that Blizzard is taking an aggressive stance on it. Think of it as crowd control.

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    4. Re:not to be a smart ass, but: by Maserati · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, the 'limited, lethal' theory of crowd control. Snipers take out everyone with an armband, clipboard, megaphone or cellphone simultaneously. The 'troublemakers' get taken out theoretically leaving the rest of the crowd scared but leaderless.

      Of course, most governments who'll do that will go right for the next level and just fire volleys into the crowd.

      Speedhackers on the other hand require no license and there is no bag limit. Go Blizzard ! And since the kind of obsessive nutjobs who'll cheat also signed up early, the first server cluster may see slightly lower populations as a result.

      --
      Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
    5. Re:not to be a smart ass, but: by Slime-dogg · · Score: 1

      I dunno about you guys, but I read /. to get new information.

      You must be extremely new here.

      --
      You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
  11. Cheating eh? by Master_T · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think it has to do with a deep-seatesx psychological perception of self-inadequacy. Such people perhaps have never had the chance to be in charge or to be in a position of power and so instead of playing the game like everyone else, they feel the need to cheat to obtain a position of power. Doing stupid things that piss everyone off give such persons a feeling of power and importance based upon the attention they receive, even though it is negative. This syndrome does not just appear in cheaters, but in the kind of people who steal planes just to steal planes in Battlefield and who flashbang their team every chance they get in CounterStrike. It is rooted in a deep need for attention which they most like receive little or none of in real life. This problem, to use Freudian terms, would be called a "Smacktard Complex" driving people to do rude, annoying and stupid things just to anger those around them. It gives them feelings of power and supplies them with attention as they deeply desire. So, everytime you ignored that idiot at school or at work, a cheating smacktard was born.

    1. Re:Cheating eh? by b3s · · Score: 1

      The other theory, without mumbo-jumbo, is that they are jerks, always have been jerks, and will probably die jerks.

      --
      a polar bear is a rectangular bear after a coordinate change.
  12. Bandwidth be damned by Syncdata · · Score: 1

    Is the human mind even capable of conceiving the CPU/GPU resources that a company would have to possess to be able to transmit everything to the dumb terminal, which is only transmitting/processing keyboard/mouse input?

    The "server" room in this example would also be hotter than a thousand suns. Also, the subscription cost would be more on the order of 100 a month rather than 15.

    So, yeah, get used to dealing with people hacking things client side.

    --
    "Inattention makes clowns of us all" -Bean
    1. Re:Bandwidth be damned by eggstasy · · Score: 1

      Uh, Second Life is entirely streamed from the server. The download is only 10 - 20 megs, and then everything you see and do is sent over the internet.
      It works great and does not require a very fat pipe.
      You can feasibly play it on a 128 kbit line, althought its bandwidth slider can be pushed up to 1 mbit.

    2. Re:Bandwidth be damned by 0racle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And there are how many users at any one time? How many for WoW at any given time? It might work for a small community, but at the moment, its not going to work for WoW, EQ2 or any of the extremely large MMO games.

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    3. Re:Bandwidth be damned by Syncdata · · Score: 1

      Perhaps I'm dismissing the idea out of hand, but the post to which I replied insinuated that every aspect of the game should be run on the host side, with the client receiving 100% of the game, from what is currently done (character data, player location, location of enemies, objects, etc) as well as rendering of graphics, and execution of 100% of code, which would be rediculous.

      The way I read the parents post, bandwidth being equal, a p4 with a ati 9x00 and a gig of ram would have the same quality of experience as a p2 350 with a 2d card and 128 of ram.

      The NSA might not have the resources to run that MMORPG.

      --
      "Inattention makes clowns of us all" -Bean
    4. Re:Bandwidth be damned by Edgewize · · Score: 2, Interesting


      Yes, the DATA RESOURCES are streamed from the server. The game is still rendered on your client, and your keystrokes are still handled locally. The only major architectural difference between Second Life and WoW is that one comes on CDs ahead of time, and one gets downloaded in the background.

    5. Re:Bandwidth be damned by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Can you even imagine trying to fit a whole computer in just one room, it' have to be a small stadium at least.
      At least that's what they said circa 1960. Think about how much more powerfull todays desktop pc's are over 1970's mainframes. I've got a 64bit processor with more cache memory than many mainframes had total in the early days.
      So right now, yes the server cluster that could handle that for just a few dozen users would probably need a small nuclear reactor and put out more heat than a small city, but how about in 20 years?

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
  13. Wait... by rbarreira · · Score: 2, Funny

    I first read your post as "Blizzard can't catch speed hackers, because when they're spotted, they run". I only grasped what you really meant when I saw it mod'd as informativa. Was I the only one? :D

    --

    The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
  14. Diablo by syynnapse · · Score: 1

    blizzard opposed to cheating? haha
    anyone remember playing diablo online?
    I only played it later on, and when I did, I'm pretty sure the number of cheaters far exceeded people playing fairly. I wonder what it's like now.

    --

    System.out.println(syynnapse.getSig());

    1. Re:Diablo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      blizzard opposed to cheating? haha
      anyone remember playing diablo online?


      Yes, but I don't recall paying $15/month so that Blizzard could afford a permanent live support staff to continuously update the game, "police" the game world, etc.

      Oh, and Diablo 1 was peer-to-peer wrt character info, WoW is client-server, and you do understand the difference? That in peer-to-peer the user has their character info stored locally so it is inherently hackable while client-server stores character info on the company server.

    2. Re:Diablo by talaphid · · Score: 1

      Moreover, I recall paying money for an updated game called Diablo 2 (they also advanced the plot). Had I the audacity, I could now store my characters on their servers and - gasp low and behold - avoid many of the problems of Diablo 1. Yes, dupes, hacks, and exploits appeared. But it wasn't anywhere near as bad as the plink! I nuke your inventory and disconnect you from my game of Diablo 1.

      It's almost like every time they take your money, it gets better. Weird, right? I wonder how WoW will be with you paying monthly...

    3. Re:Diablo by Synkronos · · Score: 1

      Blizzard are by far the most active account banners out there. You just need to sift thru a couple of months of the news archives on www.battle.net to get a pretty clear indication of the message they are sending: Hacking is _not_ allowed, and will be punished _severely_.

      --
      Playing poker with a joker and some Uno cards
    4. Re:Diablo by Edgewize · · Score: 1

      Diablo was Blizzard North's first multiplayer game, and yes, they made some serious design mistakes. But in their defense, it wasn't originally meant for multiplayer. Heck, the original design was a turn-based RPG; realtime movement was a one-day hack.

      There's still a decently-sized "legit" Diablo community that hangs out in private channels and only plays passworded games with other known-legit payers.

    5. Re:Diablo by b3s · · Score: 1

      How do new legit players get in if these people only play on these passworded channels and games?

      --
      a polar bear is a rectangular bear after a coordinate change.
  15. Or master ambushers by MMaestro · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Speed hackers could be master ambushers. Rush in quickly, have all the ambushers attack one guy, run out, repeat. They'd be untouchable in PvP.

  16. THAT is not the bad part by BerntB · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Whats the point of cheating in a online game.
    They are a..holes, sure. But online games isn't the bad part.

    What scares me is when I wonder what that kind of people do in real life -- and how many are in my social groups. :-(

    Shudder...

    --
    Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
    1. Re:THAT is not the bad part by ewen · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Some years ago I was a law student. One class we played this group game whereby cheating (through lying to the group about what you were going to do, then doing something else) would let you win big. Nearly everyone in the class cheated. Some were very proud of the high scores they achieved in the game that way. No one else seemed to see it as a problem; they were disappointed they didn't figure out to cheat sooner.

      I'm not sure what this says about our lawyers today. But I don't think it's good.

      Ewen

      PS: My score was negative. And I'm not a lawyer. Those two things are not completely unrelated.

    2. Re:THAT is not the bad part by name773 · · Score: 1

      cheers to you (honestly)

    3. Re:THAT is not the bad part by BerntB · · Score: 1
      cheers to you (honestly)
      Don't be naive! He probably lied.

      1/2 a :-)

      --
      Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
    4. Re:THAT is not the bad part by BerntB · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I'm not sure what this says about our lawyers today.
      Was there any punishment for cheating? If not, it was allowed.

      And, yes, that is a cynical attitude. Please read about game theory, prisoners dilemma, etc.

      (Dawkins' "The selfish gene" is really good. It'll change your view of the world.)

      What I find problematic is when you are dishonest with people that trust you. That you have a "social contract" with and you know they will get very angry if they find out that you cheat. I.e. "real" betrayal.

      --
      Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
    5. Re:THAT is not the bad part by ewen · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, there wasn't any punishment for cheating.

      But that was pretty much my point. Here you have a class of people that are supposedly going to be the next generation of highly trusted people (ie, lawyers taking care of people's property, money, etc). And they're cheating to get a few meaningless points in a trivial game. Because they can.

      Perhaps it was too much to expect that no one in the class even saw a problem with people the public are supposed to trust just cheating because they can.

      I've since adjusted my cynacism meter. It reads off-scale less frequently now.

      Ewen

      PS: I've read (and even own) Dawkin's "The selfish gene", and I'd recommend it too.

    6. Re:THAT is not the bad part by kamapuaa · · Score: 1

      Honestly, you're scared and shudder at the thought you might know a person who cheats at a video game? This isn't like they cheat on their wife or they cheat on their taxes, or something that carries actual moral weight. It's just a video game. If I found one of my friends used a bug in a video game to make a dwarf run really fast, I wouldn't care in the slightest.

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    7. Re:THAT is not the bad part by Danny+Rathjens · · Score: 1
      What scares me is when I wonder what that kind of people do in real life -- and how many are in my social groups. :-(

      In real life, those are the folks that lie or exaggerate on FEMA grants or insurance claims. We had a lot of that in Florida after the recent hurricanes. They don't care that it hurts everyone else if they get ahead a little bit.

    8. Re:THAT is not the bad part by damiam · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I would care. Hacking in online games is not only stupid (it destroys the challenge of the game), but it ruins the experience for other players. A person has to have a certain degree of asshole-ness to do something like that.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    9. Re:THAT is not the bad part by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know about you, but the LAST person in the world that I would trust is a lawyer, ESPECIALLY if I was the one paying for his services.

    10. Re:THAT is not the bad part by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They will tend to take the attitude that everyone else is doing it anyway. Capitalism is just one big Prisoner's Dilemma.

    11. Re:THAT is not the bad part by DrSkwid · · Score: 1


      Ok, what about finding that if you led a mob down a certain path that it got stuck behind rocks out of melee range and you could spell it to death with zero risk ? (The Overthere - Everquest)

      What about finding that you could should mobs with bleed shots and run out of their range before they fired back, repeat until they die ? (SWG)

      Is this cheating? Is this morally rupugnent?

      It certainly reduces the challenge of the game.

      From my perspective unless you are using an external program to manipulate the packets or inputs then everything is fair game.

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    12. Re:THAT is not the bad part by BerntB · · Score: 1
      From my perspective unless you are using an external program to manipulate the packets or inputs then everything is fair game.
      I agree completely.

      Instead consider e.g. the cheating a few years ago in Counterstrike and all the people that quit playing that game. Not all the cheaters where kids.

      (See my other comments for more.)

      --
      Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
    13. Re:THAT is not the bad part by Golias · · Score: 1

      Dawkins' "The selfish gene" is really good. It'll change your view of the world.

      "The Selfish Gene" and various prisoners dilemma games never really taught me anything about the world and/or human nature that I didn't already know.

      What they did teach me was a great deal about the sort of person who would ask a classroom full of students to play such a game.

      It was the first encounter with "big picture" elitism of my young life, and really gave me a lot of useful tools for recognizing and avoiding such people.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    14. Re:THAT is not the bad part by BerntB · · Score: 1
      "big picture" elitism
      What is that?

      After you have defined it -- could you point to what, say, Dawkins has written that support your description?

      --
      Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
  17. What about macros/bots? by MBraynard · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Has Blizzard taken a stand on these?

    1. Re:What about macros/bots? by theclam159 · · Score: 1

      They have taken an aggressive stance against botting. In fact, fishing was disabled in several areas until they were able to stop the bots. However, macros are most definately allowed, as they are built into the game. There is a macro button you can click on and create your own macros.

    2. Re:What about macros/bots? by MBraynard · · Score: 1
      CAn't you write a macro that has a loop?

      And how do they detect the bots?

    3. Re:What about macros/bots? by Synkronos · · Score: 1

      Can't you write a macro that has a loop?
      The actual rule is that you may not modify or run external scripts or programs on their code. So, if you can do it in-game without any outside help, it is perfectly legal

      --
      Playing poker with a joker and some Uno cards
    4. Re:What about macros/bots? by NaugaHunter · · Score: 2, Informative

      It depends on how you define 'taken a stand'. There is a known bot that will fish for a player. They have disabled the high level fishing areas to prevent a flood of high level items from these bots. Presumably they are working on either a sure-fire way of detecting the bot from someone who's fishing and doesn't feel like responding to people talking to him, or they are reworking how fishing works to break the bot and make it harder to use.

      So they've identified the problem, and taken immediate action to limit the damage it can do. Since they aren't about to just remove fishing, they are definitely working on ways to identify people doing it.

      I wouldn't be surprised if they've already been banning bots; the problem is they would generally have to watch a character for 36 hours straight to be reasonably certain it's not a single person.

      --
      R: That voice. Where have I heard that voice before? B: In about 365 other episodes. But I don't know who it is either.
    5. Re:What about macros/bots? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "They have disabled the high level fishing areas to prevent a flood of high level items from these bots."

      So they are preventing legitimate use of the high level fishing areas (whatever that means) in order to prevent abuse of it. Sounds like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

      Seems that after over a year of testing, there wouldn't be such easy abuses of the game.

      " wouldn't be surprised if they've already been banning bots; the problem is they would generally have to watch a character for 36 hours straight to be reasonably certain it's not a single person."

      You obciously haven't seen my wife play Everquest. ;)

    6. Re:What about macros/bots? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      there's programs that allow scripting keyboard and mouse input.

      fairly impossible to detect such macros, you could even add some randomisation to the scripts so the keystrokes wouldn't be millisecond perfect.

      so the ONLY way to combat such scripts is to have the tasks be so that you need to make creative choices to get through them. in other words, they shouldn't have tasks that give you money as reward for doing something very boring and repetitive.

      it's just basic logic to come up with this stuff. yet, regularly, people making stupid flash games for stupid marketing campaigns don't think of these things and their games end up being owned by cheaters.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    7. Re:What about macros/bots? by Deathdonut · · Score: 1

      Anyone willing to fish for 36 hours strait in an online game deserves to be banned if not shot. The former for their own good, the latter for ours.

    8. Re:What about macros/bots? by ezzzD55J · · Score: 1
      it's just basic logic to come up with this stuff. yet, regularly, people making stupid flash games for stupid marketing campaigns don't think of these things and their games end up being owned by cheaters.

      Wait.. We're discussing 'cheating' in 'stupid flash games for stupid marketing campaigns' :-) ?

  18. You don't hang around Ebay much? by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Interesting

    there's cash money to be made selling virtual stuff.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:You don't hang around Ebay much? by ameoba · · Score: 1

      it's against the ToS of most games these days to do so.

      --
      my sig's at the bottom of the page.
    2. Re:You don't hang around Ebay much? by Slime-dogg · · Score: 1

      Blizzard answered that problem with the concept of soulbound items. There are some items that you get that only you can use from the moment you pick them up. There are other items that you get, that only you can use if you decide to use them. This is how most high level items work.

      I'm not even sure if you can sell characters themselves... You'd almost have to sell your whole user account, which is kinda dumb.

      --
      You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
    3. Re:You don't hang around Ebay much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why people just sell gold on eBay for WoW. For HUGE amounts too. I was looking around, pricing the 60-day game cards, and people were getting bids for 5 gold for around 20 bucks. That's fucking crazy... You could pay for your monthly fee after you get to a level high enough where gold is very easy to obtain.

    4. Re:You don't hang around Ebay much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please, it's "cash" or "money", not both.

  19. How the speed hack was fixed in UO by mkraft · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I remember when UO was out people were using all kind of hacks such as the speed hack until they implemented server side checks.

    So using the speed hack for example, if some took a step the server would have to send an acknowledgement back to the client that the move was accepted. There was a small buffer to compensate for lag. This worked well except when you bumped into a dymanic object during high periods of lag in which case you would see yourself walk through the object only to get "bounced back" because the server had denied your request to move.

    Hacking the client to remove the check for the server response was pointless since the server kept your actual location so while you appeared to be one place on your client, the server had you somewhere else.

    Since UO is over 8 years old and they solved the problem, how come current games still have this problem?

    1. Re:How the speed hack was fixed in UO by Synkronos · · Score: 1

      I doubt Blizzard sifted meticulously throught the version history of UO, especially since it is 8 years old. The same bugs creep into a lot of programs of the same type; it's pretty much unavoidable. I'm sure the team decided that this would be an adequate way to deal with the lag issue, although it could also be a lazy coder (every corporation has one). Well, let's hope someone at Blizz is reading this now, and implementing something to stop it software wise rather than just a rule check :P

      --
      Playing poker with a joker and some Uno cards
  20. Lets hope they do a better job preventing hacks by Photar · · Score: 1

    Than they did in the Diablos and Starcraft. Recently they deleted around 500,000 starcraft accounts in two seporate waves.

    That said I think there is a lot greater risk hacking in WoW than in Starcraft. In SC if you hack and your key is banned, you can play on alternate servers. As far as I know there is no Alternate network to connect to for WoW.

    --
    He who knows not and knows he knows not is a wise man. He who knows not and knows not he knows not is a fool.
    1. Re:Lets hope they do a better job preventing hacks by Lord+Graga · · Score: 1

      Back in the BETA period, there was a few "sandbox" servers running. They were in no way interesting to be at, but they were there. I wouldn't be surprised if one or two of those have evolved into something more playable.

  21. Who cares if somebody speedhacks? by Guspaz · · Score: 0, Troll

    Normally I'm all for banning speedhackers, but in this case, if it's NOT a PvP server, then why ban them? I participated in the beta, and I got sick of spending all my time running around. Probably 80 to 90% of the time spent playing is running from point A to point B. It's the primary reason I didn't bother buying the game.

    You know you have a problem when people start using speedhacks to save themselves from running around. But instead of fixing the problem, Blizzard banned anybody who tried to fix it themselves. Good job listening to your customers, Blizzard.

    1. Re:Who cares if somebody speedhacks? by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I participated in beta and I got sick of spending all my time taking damage in fights. Probably 100% of the fights I was in damaged me. It's the primary reason I didn't bother buying the game.

      You know you have a problem with people start using invincible hacks to save themselves from getting damaged. But instead of fixing the problem, Blizzard banned anybody who cheated. Good job listening to your customers, Blizzard.

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
    2. Re:Who cares if somebody speedhacks? by startled · · Score: 1, Troll

      PvP is possible on all servers, actually.

    3. Re:Who cares if somebody speedhacks? by Starsmore · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I don't like driving 35 through that long stretch of road on the way to work. So I guess it's okay for me to drive 65 through that school zone, hmm?

      Incase you miss the point, which you probably will... it's against the rules (ie: LAWS) set down by Blizzard. When you install WoW, you are agreeing to play by the rules/obey the laws that Blizzard has put down for the game.

      Understand now?

      --
      "If Common Sense was so common, it wouldn't be such a valued trait."
    4. Re:Who cares if somebody speedhacks? by Synkronos · · Score: 1

      How long did you play your character for, total? And did you get a mount? From what I've heard (and I must admit I didn't get the client downloaded in time for the beta) there are many many many different transport options, all specifically designed with player comfort in mind. I think the thinking goes like this: Early levels, the players can damn well walk. Let them have a close look at all our lovely scenery, we worked flipping hard on it, okay? Later levels, fine, give them a mount, and they can sprint thru. *sniff* Not even a pause to admire our lovely grass Long distance, give them something airborne! We can show off the big picture! Yeah, even the high levels will have to spend a little time watching the horizon in this one

      --
      Playing poker with a joker and some Uno cards
    5. Re:Who cares if somebody speedhacks? by Edgewize · · Score: 3, Interesting

      1) Every server is PvP. The "PvE" servers are just consentual instead of automatic.

      2) Speedhack means that someone can beat you to every single important monster/chest/whatever.

      3) Customers want a button they can click to win the game. Should Blizzard provide it?

    6. Re:Who cares if somebody speedhacks? by LordLucless · · Score: 2, Informative

      Mounts come in at level 40 - and there's a hell a lot of walking to do before then. That said, after your first 10 levels or so, you don't need to walk much. Griffins (or Horde equivelant) cost next to nothing after you've hit level 12 or 14. Then there's the Deeprun Tram for free between Stormwind and Ironforge, and I think the Horde has a Zeppelin? Many classes also get their own transport abilities - Druids and Shaman get a travel form, Mages get a teleport, Hunters get Aspect of the Cheetah, etc. Plus you've got Warlocks who, with two other people to help them, can summon another player from anywhere else in the game. Oh, and don't forget your hearthstone you can use once every hour. Although mounts are a high-level bonus, there are plenty of travel alternatives from very early on.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    7. Re:Who cares if somebody speedhacks? by PhosterPharms · · Score: 1

      Are you talking about Item Damage? Because if so, they have changed it so that one mainly takes damage in the case of death (10% to all items), Resurrection by talking to the Spirit Healer (25% to all items). You take a tiny, tiny, tiny bit of item damage through battle, but it's nothing to really complain about, and when you do repair the costs seem relatively reasonable. They have GREATLY reduced the amount of incidental item damage since the start of beta. If you're talking about character damage, then that is kind of a given that you will be damaged in a fight... You can use bandages, food, potions, or healing spells to restore your health.

    8. Re:Who cares if somebody speedhacks? by deadzaphod · · Score: 1

      3) Customers want a button they can click to win the game. Should Blizzard provide it?

      yes

    9. Re:Who cares if somebody speedhacks? by Synkronos · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the specific information :) I didn't know about all of those, just general Blizzard promises of easy transport :)

      --
      Playing poker with a joker and some Uno cards
    10. Re:Who cares if somebody speedhacks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you didn't buy the game because you were taking damage in fights...

      I guess there's two ways to interpret that sentence, the first being that you were dying all the time. I know there are some hard parts in the game, but Blizzard wants you to be paying your monthly fee for a long time. If the game was easy, everybody would probably quit by March and go back to wc3, whining about how they wish Blizzard would stop the maphackers (mmm, thats good irony).

      The other interpretation was that you were taking damage and not dying, in which case I'd say you were winning. You can't expect to take no damage at all, unless you're in a group as a healer or spellcaster. Even then, monsters might attack you if you draw aggro/threat/whatever, but avoiding that is part of the challenge.

    11. Re:Who cares if somebody speedhacks? by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, I was being a smartass and saying that everybody has something they don't like, and that doesn't give them the right to CHEAT.

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
    12. Re:Who cares if somebody speedhacks? by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 1

      At least the moderators got my post. Which is odd, because usually they're the clueless ones.

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
    13. Re:Who cares if somebody speedhacks? by space_jake · · Score: 0

      What do you think the Gem in the Diablo II battle.net chat window is?

    14. Re:Who cares if somebody speedhacks? by happyfrogcow · · Score: 1

      I participated in beta and I got sick of spending all my time taking damage in fights. Probably 100% of the fights I was in damaged me. It's the primary reason I didn't bother buying the game.

      As a non-WoW player, but fan of RPGs, i find this statement rediculous. You are playing a game that has combat as a big componant. Large fleshy things are swinging large metal things at you, or whatever. Of course you will take some damage in fights that are somewhat equal.

      lousy MTv generation.. . no patience.

    15. Re:Who cares if somebody speedhacks? by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 1

      You managed to miss the entire point of my post. Read the parent again and compare them.

      I'm commenting on the players who cheat to fix a problem they see in the game.

      Unfortunatly it went right over your head.

      And I stopped watching MTV when they cancelled Sifl & Olly.

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
    16. Re:Who cares if somebody speedhacks? by SoulToast · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't say they "got it": they marked your comment "Insightful", not "Funny". Oh, well...

  22. And the obligatory variant... by Sebadude · · Score: 1, Funny

    In Soviet Russia, cheaters ban you.

    --
    Eh.
    1. Re:And the obligatory variant... by OwlofCreamCheese · · Score: 0

      ha! that joke was actually funny this time. since it was like, ya know... actually true.

      --
      -You're wasting your time. Alfador only likes me.
    2. Re:And the obligatory variant... by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      in North Korea, Cheating online is for the Elderly.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
  23. Ban and lose. Understand and win by Fallen+Andy · · Score: 1

    Why oh why do we hear this time and time again. Whether it be auto-miners, bots or speed hacks?

    It wouldn't really be the case that the games designers are short sighted would it?

    It wouldn't really be the case that some people have almost zero real imagination?

    Just like the OSS movement, I would really love to see at least one game where we could contribute things which made the game better for all. In other words, better AI (please please) better anything. All it takes is to allocate a few worlds as a sandbox/playpen where anybody can break every
    rule (and accepts that their code becomes public domain)...

    What do other slashdotters think?
    (perhaps i should post to askslashdot?)

    Andy.

    1. Re:Ban and lose. Understand and win by Lukey+Boy · · Score: 1
    2. Re:Ban and lose. Understand and win by Synkronos · · Score: 1

      Blizzard are excellent at incorporating player feedback into future patches and expansions. And they keep innovating on, for example, their RTS interface (even if you prefer Starcraft to Warcraft 3, War3 interface is still _better_, in that SC benefits from having it retroactively applied)

      --
      Playing poker with a joker and some Uno cards
  24. Small abuse is so easy by Synkronos · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Okay, so they have done nothing software-wise to prevent people from doing this? Just their usual 'no mods' rule? So, do they have any way of detecting moderate use of this? For example, someone who runs just that _little_ bit faster than everyone else. This seems to me like it would be indistinguishable from legitimate lag, if correctly implemented. Although this does downgrade it from a game-breaking bug to a pretty small tweak. I suppose Blizzard will be watching _very_ closely for lag-hopping past certain bottlenecks :P

    --
    Playing poker with a joker and some Uno cards
  25. It's only cheating when you're caught... by vhold · · Score: 2, Interesting

    When I was a kid, I honestly didn't see -any- moral problem with cheating. To me it was just part of the game, and as long as you won and didn't get caught, you won, and getting caught was just another form of losing, and since if you wanted to cheat it meant you were likely to lose, it seemed to make no difference.

    I think my perspective changed when I realized that losing well had social benefits.

    I suppose a realization like that is much harder to make online.

    I'm sure most of the cheaters would rationalize that it doesn't even apply at all, but knowing the kinds of friends I've made through mutually respectful play vs the kinds of people you see on their cheater forums I'd say the social rewards for not cheating are substaintially better online as well.

  26. good endings to your post by SetupWeasel · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    ...And that was how the modern corporation was born.

    or ...And that was how George W Bush became president.

  27. Its a just punshiment I belive by Ganondorf+Dragmire · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I remember when ppl were doing speed hacks on Final Fantasy XI. It was so unfair to see them run by your charcter at 80MPH while you jog at a jumpy 5. It really tips the balance of the game. So I belive ban-mation is sutable punshiment. If you commit a crime, you must be punshed. In this case. They were speeding.

    1. Re:Its a just punshiment I belive by Crescens · · Score: 1

      ... are you sure they weren't Thieves using the 'Flee' ability? That's a normal ability that speeds them up.

    2. Re:Its a just punshiment I belive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I seem to remember watching some guy in the full Red Mage gear (the job-specific gear) speeding around Qufim. So, no, it wasn't just a thief.

      Of course, Square-Enix never did anything about people cheating that I ever found out about. Instead they just told everyone that any problem they asked about had been "taken care of" without providing any additional information.

      I much prefer Blizzard to Square-Enix, mainly because Blizzard will actually communicate with its players. Square-Enix just kind of sits in their ivory tower and never condecends to discuss problems with the plebes playing the game.

    3. Re:Its a just punshiment I belive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While attempting not to get too far off topic i'd just like to point out that in final fantasy it is possible to get a 'subjob' which is half the lvl of your main job. A red mage in artifact armor has to be lvl 60 allowing him to have a subjob of 30. Flee is a lvl 25 job ability. My point being you have still not proved a damn thing.

      As far as not talking to their players ... I think they are, it's just hard to understand the funny looking japaneese letters.

  28. Not all lawyers are bad by alexo · · Score: 2, Insightful


    It is just that 99% of them give the others a bad name.

  29. Adios, punks? by eforhan · · Score: 1

    Don't you mean "4di0z, punkz"?

  30. because ... by DrSkwid · · Score: 1


    This kind of exploit was common in the first generation of MMORPGs, we had overlaid maps that show the movement, and threat level of all NPCs & PCs, invisible or otherwise in DAOC, movement cheats in EQ1 iirc, tradskill bots in EQ & SWG.

    Blizzard is pitching itself against the second generation MMOPRGs (of which EQ2 is the first) and it is interesting that it should fall into the same traps as the previous generation. Part of my decision to play EQ2 was the fact that Sony/Verant have had years of experience therefore hopefully the game will benefit from this whereas WoW is a new player.

    As the first two weeks of my EQ2 pass by I can say that I am pleased with my decision. Good luck to WoW perhaps I'll play it when I'm bored of EQ2 in six months time.

    --
    There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
  31. I said almost the same thing by dark404 · · Score: 1

    when anyone asks me if I'm going to play WoW, I've been saying I'll never play a blizard MMORPG because blizard's security has always scucked, if they do something about it afterward is beside the point. Being tough on hacks is nice and all, but that still means players have to deal with cheaters for a time before blizard bans them / fixes it, shadowbane anyone?

  32. Harrrm... by Ayanami+Rei · · Score: 1

    Suck.

    I love how everything is centered, and there's ads on top of each page of the 7 page review.
    So the game is perfect, aside from your unrealistic desires for ultra-realistic (but pointless) physics and water effects.

    Yawn.

    Your music has guts though (viola? double bass?). Keep it up.

    --
    THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
  33. Suggestion ;-) by RedLaggedTeut · · Score: 1

    Well, you could have some Monthy Python type executioner(s) run around on the MMOG, halt and ask people questions like "What is the speed of an unladen swallow?" and then kill them if they don't answer well, since they obviously must be a script if they don't know the answer ;-)

    --
    I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
  34. Reminds me of Starcraft .. by RedLaggedTeut · · Score: 0
    In Soviet Russia, cheaters ban you.

    Well that reminds me of when I stopped playing Starcraft. I was used to games where it was hard to cheat, but it seems on Starcraft the usual way to play the game is with an all-visible hack.

    So I sat in this game and my ally told me that he was seeing that player "kickmyass" was weak and we should I attack him. I figured I'd punish my ally for cheating, turned war on him, and wiped out his base .. Well one worker of him escaped and run TO OUR FOES, who offered him refuge, even though I told them he was cheating .. go figure ;-)

    --
    I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
  35. Aimbot Author here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey Mr Internet Pop-Psychologist...I thought I would answer your post, being an aimbot author and cheater myself :)

    I think it has to do with a deep-seatesx

    A deep what?

    psychological perception of self-inadequacy.

    What does using a particular program have to do with self-inadequacy? I'm sure most cheaters (I know a few) realize that doing something in-game doesn't make up for any real life inadequacies they might have

    Such people perhaps have never had the chance to be in charge or to be in a position of power and so instead of playing the game like everyone else, they feel the need to cheat to obtain a position of power.

    Now you are dreaming. I can tell you I for one spent a few years working as a manager for a successful business, it doesn't have too much to do with power. It has a lot to do with having fun. :)

    Doing stupid things that piss everyone off give such persons a feeling of power and importance based upon the attention they receive, even though it is negative.

    Did you ever think that maybe they just enjoy it? That it's not about attention for them, but having fun? I know that is what it's about to me. I'm not trying to run around and be a fanboi for some game, be in some gay ass clan on a ladder, I'm just trying to have a good time.

    This syndrome does not just appear in cheaters, but in the kind of people who steal planes just to steal planes in Battlefield and who flashbang their team every chance they get in CounterStrike.

    Did you ever think that maybe people, even cheaters do the same things for different reasons?

    It is rooted in a deep need for attention which they most like receive little or none of in real life. This problem, to use Freudian terms, would be called a "Smacktard Complex" driving people to do rude, annoying and stupid things just to anger those around them.

    I think you are just trying to put down a group of people you don't particularly like. Have you ran into an aimbot today? I hope it was one of mine. :)

    It gives them feelings of power and supplies them with attention as they deeply desire. So, everytime you ignored that idiot at school or at work, a cheating smacktard was born.

    Nice theory there Slashdot Psychologist. We will give you a +3 fanboi groupthink moderation. I can tell you though, I know a lot of cheaters and you are way off. Most of them just cheat for the fuck of it, because they realize it's just a game and it doesn't matter. Sure, they get amused because idiots like you get all pissed off, but people like you are the ones who take games too seriously, not us. Only people with your mindset could somehow relate cheating in online games to a " deep-seatesx psychological perception of self-inadequacy". I assure you, that if anyone has inadequacies, it is you for taking a video game too seriously.

    -NoClanNeeded-
    C4E

  36. Your legitimacy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... has been validated. You will be contacted shortly.

  37. Someone tell me how... by realityfighter · · Score: 1

    I can mute all comments that use the term "slippery slope" and it's variants.

    --
    A strain of paranoid prevention can be worse than the disease, whate'er the intention.