Slashdot Mirror


How Cheaters Cheat at Halo 2

An anonymous reader writes "Built on a network that automatically bans gamers that have modified their Xbox, Xbox Live should be nearly cheat-proof. However, it's not, as anyone playing Halo 2 online already knows. How do cheaters on Xbox Live manage to artificially boost their rankings? What is Bridging? What is Standby? This article takes a look at what exactly is done when a cheater cheats, and what exactly Bungie is doing about it. It includes videos and some very funny letters from 13-year-olds that have been baned from matchmaking on Live and are desperately trying to worm their way back onto the system."

92 comments

  1. The same way they do it in every game. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    By being better than me. It's the only possible explanation. The bastards.

  2. Cheaters... by j235 · · Score: 0, Troll

    ... just make this game not fun.
    Or is that the substandard gameplay or horrible control scheme?

    1. Re:Cheaters... by Scorpion265 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, I'd have to say, the control scheme is quite nice considering the hardware. As far as the ability to customize sensetivity and button layout, I think it might be one of the better setups for a controller based console. (gotta be specific now with the wii mote)

      --
      I am full of goo... black evil goo
    2. Re:Cheaters... by vertinox · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or is that the substandard gameplay or horrible control scheme?

      Really? I thought it was the 12 year olds screaming obscenities about my sexual orientation at painful volumes into my headset that made the game not fun to play.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    3. Re:Cheaters... by Grey+Ninja · · Score: 0

      I can just picture this in the context of a rectal exam. "Actually, I'd have to say, the exam was quite nice considering the hardware". That doesn't make it pleasant, or something I would deliberately seek out. Until the DS and the Wii, FPS gaming firmly belonged on the PC.

    4. Re:Cheaters... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is the built in autoaim.
      It makes most console FPS bad.
      It is a built in cheat.

      signed,
      CAL-Main CS 1.6 Player.

    5. Re:Cheaters... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      'Virgin' is not a sexual orientation...

  3. From tfa... by PatrickThomson · · Score: 1

    From reading TFA, it seems like all these problems are caused by people who host games themselves. Like, duh?

    --
    I am one of many. My idea is not unique, nor do I expect my voice alone to sway you. I speak in a chorus of opinion.
    1. Re:From tfa... by RalphSleigh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So, if one persons connection drops, he is the only person who can carry on playing the game? And they wonder why people cheat so much?

      They run the games peer to peer, and wonder why people cheat so much? Surely even using a server to connect the clients, even if its not hosting the game could prevent alot of this

      Someone give these guys a class on network security 101: NEVER TRUST THE CLIENT, EVER, WHOEVER THEY ARE, NO NOT EVEN YOUR MUM.

      --
      Come as you are, do what you must, be who you will.
    2. Re:From tfa... by Incoherent07 · · Score: 1

      Really. The number of exploits jumps by orders of magnitude anytime you allow the client to be trusted to do anything. Example: Diablo 2's "Open" online play mode, where characters are stored client-side.

      --
      This is my sig. There are many others like it, but this one is mine.
    3. Re:From tfa... by sheetsda · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not only that, they aren't evening using any really nasty networking tricks. The article suggests they basically just drop packets at will. In the world of PC games we have (among other things) these nasty things called "aim proxies". Cheater's game connects to another machine under his control which maintains the actual connection to the server and monitors the game state as the traffic passes through. Every time he fires a shot, it changes the outbound traffic of what he was aiming at to say, the head of the nearest enemy player. Go ahead and scan his client/PC for cheats, its perfectly clean. Nasty.

    4. Re:From tfa... by Rekolitus · · Score: 1

      I know exactly what you mean and I think exactly the same thing.

      I've seen tons of online games like it, and I've seen one, yes, one game where the protocol was documented and very secure. (Documenting the protocol didn't uncover any vulnerability whatsoever).

      Point being, don't give the client a say in anything you don't want it to have a say in. If you don't want them to suddenly jump over there, don't give them commands which give them the leaway to do so. Give them commands like "Move forward a bit at normal speed" and "Move back a bit slowly", and rate-limit those commands. And shooting? It should just be one, parameterless command. "Shoot".

      The developers of these games get exactly what they deserve.

    5. Re:From tfa... by popeguilty · · Score: 1

      Well, that's really your fault for expecting Open Play to be like Closed play.

      Now, myself, I have many fond memories of getting a few friends together, giving ourselves 99 levels, and going forth to annihilate. Good times, good times.

    6. Re:From tfa... by grammar+fascist · · Score: 1

      NEVER TRUST THE CLIENT, EVER, WHOEVER THEY ARE, NO NOT EVEN YOUR MUM.

      That's not exactly true.

      As a mod author, I've dealt with cheating in Quake 3. The actual truth is that you'll have to trust the client at some point or you can't even have a playable game.

      It's at that point of trust that the cheaters exploit things. For example, you have to trust the controller input (or a function of it), or players couldn't even play. You could never stop some d00d from creating a custom controller / television set that aims for him.

      Well, you could, theoretically, through legislation. (Mandating hardware certification and such-like.) But then you bring the threat of violence against him for merely cheating.

      --
      I got my Linux laptop at System76.
    7. Re:From tfa... by grammar+fascist · · Score: 1

      That sounds a lot like Quake 3's commands. Movement, buttons, and a time stamp were pretty much all that were sent to the server.

      It didn't work. Aimbotters created network proxies (intercept and modify input), OpenGL hacks (move the mouse for you based on what's drawn on the screen), client hooks (load up the Quake 3 executable and cause all sorts of mischief), etc., etc., etc.

      At some point, you have to trust the client, period. In the case you describe, the server trusts that the input sent to it actually reflects what the player did.

      --
      I got my Linux laptop at System76.
    8. Re:From tfa... by assassinator42 · · Score: 1

      There were 298,647 matches played in the last 24 hours. There are 69,159 people online now. How much would running servers for everyone cost? And what do you mean by using servers to connect the clients? Does anyone know how much cheating there was in Halo 1? Since the network code in that game was designed for LAN play, I believe it is less susceptible to cheating. I do know it ends the game if one person is using a modified map while another is using a regular one. Halo 2 tries to minimize the impact of lag, which is why it sends the positions of things rather than move forward and move backward commands.

    9. Re:From tfa... by Have+Blue · · Score: 1

      There was virtually no cheating in Halo 1 not because of robust network code but because it didn't support Internet play- virtually all network games were played with people in the same room/house as you, and if you catch someone cheating in that situation you can go force them to stop. I have no idea how much of a problem cheating was on the tunneling programs that let Halo 1 play over a VPN, but generally all Halo 1 games were among players who knew and trusted each other, or who all consented to using a modded game beforehand.

    10. Re:From tfa... by Have+Blue · · Score: 1

      They've already taken that class, but also taken high-performance game design 101 (minimize network traffic with client-side prediction) and economics 101 (the studio is not able to maintain the server farm needed to support the Halo 2 Live population).

    11. Re:From tfa... by BenjyD · · Score: 1

      Most PC games manage it fine, through a mixture of official servers, rented servers and clan-run servers.

      If the server can run on a 733Mhz celeron with 64Mb RAM while it's already running a Halo client, then the hardware requirements for running the server must be minimal.

    12. Re:From tfa... by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Yes but a PC is infinitely more modifyable than a console that has to compare hardware checksums and doesn't run user-defined code. You could intercept the packets of the XBox but you couldn't use OpenGL hacks. You could run a simulation on a separate system that pieces together the gamestate from the traffic and plays the game for you but even that would still have flaws. Since the console controller has a limit on the turn rate your aimbot wouldn't be nearly as effective as a PC aimbot since it couldn't instantly target enemies (plus a game design that doesn't rely on instant hit weapons much can help with aimbots). If the server constrains the packets to only allow actions that the player can actually perform (e.g. no shooting your shotgun every single frame), cheats will not be completely eliminated but reduced in their effectiveness enough to make them less of a problem. Of course, a game design that requires strategy more than reflexes will be the hardest to break since it would require a very intricate AI to reach the strength of a human and a cheater would have to be as good of a strategist as his opponents.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    13. Re:From tfa... by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Encrypted packets? I know that may not be feasible in a game that uses 100% of the system performance but with those multi-core next gen consoles it should be feasible to dedicate enough power to encrypting game traffic. The proxy could not read inbound traffic without knowing the console's key (which would probably require some modding to get at) and, more importantly, wouldn't be able to alter the outgoing packets (the console would definitely have to be modded to send the packets unencrypted and then a mod scan could catch that).

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    14. Re:From tfa... by sheetsda · · Score: 1

      Not a bad sceheme but I don't think its fool proof. As with any public key encryption (I'm assuming this because of the words "console's key") if you could MitM the initial key exchange (not an unreasonable assumption given they're already using bridges) you can just have 2 sets of keys in play. One between the console and the proxy, and one between the proxy and the peers or server.

      I was thinking about this a little further this morning, if they're truely using P2P as was said in some other posts then there has to be some traffic that says "Alice shoots in direction V from origin V'" which on a hit would be acknowledged by something like "Bob is hit by Alice's shot" OR "Alice shoots in direction V from origin V' and hits Bob". In the first case suppose Bob chooses to drop all the hit acknowledgements, in the second suppose Alice chooses to hit Bob with every shot. Of course your could do things like line of sight checks but how do you really prevent cheating in this manner in P2P?

    15. Re:From tfa... by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking more of keys embedded in the hardware or software. You could decrypt the traffic from the server but you could neither tamper with it (probably not much of a problem, though) nor influence the traffic that goes towards the server.

      A peer-to-peer system is impossible, desyncs way too easily. Think of this situation: Player A and B both have very little health left and carry a shotgun. They are close together and aiming at each other so the next shot would kill the other player. Both pull the trigger at the same time. On their system, their opponent dies. The message that their opponent has pulled the trigger reaches them only after their console has already resolved the situation and declared that opponent dead. It has to discard the shot.

      It's server-client and it seems that the first player that starts the game is the server, if he leaves another player becomes the server. People exploit being the server with that "lagging out" and standby stuff. A solution would be dedicated servers but apparently MS doesn't want to pay for those.

      EA's solution with Battlefield 2 has met many complaints but seems to work: They've got official server providers that allow you to rent a server (usually clans and websites do that) and only those servers can be ranked servers. Of course people complain about EA being greedy there but what else are they going to do to prevent server abuse? The ranked servers follow very tight regulations so there won't be any mods and fairly standard game settings. There are still ways to rank abuse but they are severely limited by this and noone can set up a server, make it put others at a disadvantage and have that improve his rank.

      Player run servers in BF2 are possible but they cannot be ranked servers. The server is untrustworthy, therefore the master server cannot trust its reports on client performance.

      That combined with encryption and the lower hackability of a console compared to a PC should make cheating hard to pull off in a way that severely hurts the game.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    16. Re:From tfa... by sjames · · Score: 1

      They've already taken that class, but also taken high-performance game design 101 (minimize network traffic with client-side prediction) and economics 101 (the studio is not able to maintain the server farm needed to support the Halo 2 Live population).

      Unfortunatly, they seem to have missed the one on transactions between multiple machines. The part about rolling back to the point all agree on. If they did that, there might be a 'redo hack', but it wouldn't be as easy as pushing a button to do anything useful with it.

    17. Re:From tfa... by wfberg · · Score: 1

      Not a bad sceheme but I don't think its fool proof. As with any public key encryption (I'm assuming this because of the words "console's key") if you could MitM the initial key exchange (not an unreasonable assumption given they're already using bridges) you can just have 2 sets of keys in play. One between the console and the proxy, and one between the proxy and the peers or server.

      MITM would be beaten by using a certificate on the client, as would the second setup. Cheating would then require tampering with the certificate on the client, so the client is no longer clean. It's not impossible to tamper with of course (encryption is supposed to secure communications between two parties who wish it to be secure) but it will make it harder to do so whilst remaining undetected.

      --
      SCO employee? Check out the bounty
  4. What about a true bridge? by porkThreeWays · · Score: 1

    I don't play Halo very much, but wouldn't a true hardware bridge modifying the packets going across the wire be the best way not to get caught? The techniques described in the article seem rather amatuer. I would imagine you could do things like modify bullet trajectory to always kill your opponent. Maybe that'll be a project for me this weekend ;)

    --
    If an officer ever threatens to taze you, say you have a pacemaker.
    1. Re:What about a true bridge? by fyrewulff · · Score: 2, Informative

      Here's the thing. They don't even need to modify packets. They just download an auto-aim mod to instantly lock on to your head all the way across the map with a sniper rifle that shoots 1000 rounds a second. As much as the cheaters suck, half the blame goes to Bungie for not validating DLC, like 98% of other Xbox games do. Heck, even KotOR validates it's content, and you can't even play that with other people on Live! Standbying is near unavoidable given halo 2's setup (ie, not dedicated servers at all). This makes me hope they are considering dedicated servers for ranked games for Halo 3.

      --
      "We need to get over this notion, that, for Apple to win... Microsoft must lose." - Steve Jobs, 1997
    2. Re:What about a true bridge? by gabebear · · Score: 1

      This whole situation seems rediculous. You pay for XBox Live to get dedicated servers, so WTF are clients doing talking to each other directly?

      I don't have XBL and haven't played with it much, but it certainly looks like it needs a major overhaul.

    3. Re:What about a true bridge? by CrazyJim1 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Xboxlive is a way for M$ to suck more money from people by charging them for downloadable content and stuff. Imagine M$ PassPort for video games and you have an idea of why they're doing it. They don't want 3rd party developers making video games that doesn't fit in their system.

    4. Re:What about a true bridge? by ClamIAm · · Score: 1
      Standbying is near unavoidable given halo 2's setup (ie, not dedicated servers at all). This makes me hope they are considering dedicated servers for ranked games for Halo 3.

      This really boggles my mind. If I'm paying $50 per annum for Live, I would expect dedicated servers.

    5. Re:What about a true bridge? by MstrFool · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Um, maybe it's just me, but I think I see a simple way to end the use of 'standby'. It seems that if the game looses connect to all the other players it would be able to detect that. Oh certainly not instantly, but with in a short time. If that happens it could freeze that player as well. If the standby-er freezes right along with every one else, then there is no advantage to it and one tool goes away. Certainly it doesn't fix everything, but it does help to make the cheat less useful.

      --
      Question reality.
    6. Re:What about a true bridge? by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 2, Informative

      You don't pay for dedicated servers. You pay for the ability to play online.

    7. Re:What about a true bridge? by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1

      Look at WoW. People pay significantly more than $50 a year, but the dedicated servers for it have a great deal of difficulty supporting the load. Xbox Live supports many more games. Running servers for all of them would be vastly more expensive.

    8. Re:What about a true bridge? by ClamIAm · · Score: 1
      Um, do you seriously believe this? A single shard of an MMO has thousands of people playing on it. A game on Live has, at most, a few dozen. In MMOs, connections must remain persistent for hours at a time. Games on Live last a few minutes. An MMO has to have servers up and waiting at ALL times. Live servers can queue up a new server thread when demand spikes, and scale back the same way.

      Then take into consideration the fact that most console games don't offer much new content after they are released. MMOs add lots of things after release.

      You specifically mention how WoW has difficulty supporting the load. This is a bullshit point, because it is an anecdote. Not all MMOs have difficulty supporting similar loads.

      So basically, what I've pointed out here (which is the tip of the iceberg, really) invalidates pretty much all of your points. Please try again when you have a coherent argument.

    9. Re:What about a true bridge? by gabebear · · Score: 1

      Paying for the ability to play online is stupid(and the main reason I don't have XBL). I was under the impression that the reason you had to pay to play online games on the XBox was because MS had to pay for it's server network. If all their servers are doing is matching people up to play games then it's quite a scam.

      Most console games get very little from online play, why do people pay for XBL?

    10. Re:What about a true bridge? by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 1

      Interesting.
      So you pay a monthly fee for what is included in the price of other games. For instance, Valve's games on Steam. As much as I dislike Steam, XBOX Live seems a much greater customer ripoff.

      --
      C - the footgun of programming languages
    11. Re:What about a true bridge? by wfberg · · Score: 1

      So basically, you're paying for the privilege of having your computing/network resources sold to others, and getting nothing in return.. It's like paying to be a prostitute! That's a sweet deal. Well, not for the xbox consumer, obviously.

      --
      SCO employee? Check out the bounty
    12. Re:What about a true bridge? by Voltageaav · · Score: 1

      It does, there are only a few seconds between pressing standby and the person's own Xbox stoping play, but if they end the standby just before it stops them they can do it over and over agin in sucession leting the other players reconnect inbetween, 3 seconds becomes 6, which becomes 9, which becomes 12... Lag will happen so they have to allow for it. This ends up giving the standbyer 3 seconds of play for every 1 everyone else gets. That means they can run 3 times as fast, fire 3 times as many times. You get the picture?

      --
      Someone save me from this sanity.
    13. Re:What about a true bridge? by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      Epic gets $50 ONCE for UT / 2k3 / 2k4 players anc they can manage to run dedicated servers

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    14. Re:What about a true bridge? by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1

      Of course you conveniently miss out the part where your money gains you the privilege of playing online against other people. How exactly is that 'getting nothing in return?'

    15. Re:What about a true bridge? by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1
      Um, do you seriously believe this?

      It's quite obvious, surely, that running servers comes money. People should be grateful that any companies provide servers for free, rather than throwing a tantrum when some don't. Given that Microsoft were losing money on the Xbox hardware, it's quite reasonable to expect that they try to make it back some other way. It's not as if it was an exorbitant fee.

      A single shard of an MMO has thousands of people playing on it. A game on Live has, at most, a few dozen.

      But, as I pointed out, there are a great many games that run on live. You're paying for online capability for all of them. If you had to pay for each game, that would be ridiculous. But you don't.

      An MMO has to have servers up and waiting at ALL times. Live servers can queue up a new server thread when demand spikes, and scale back the same way.

      If people have to wait more than a minute for a game, they get quite annoyed. What leads you to think that the Liv servers aren't up al the time, directing matchmaking, etc?

      Then take into consideration the fact that most console games don't offer much new content after they are released. MMOs add lots of things after release.

      That's very much dependnt on the game. And Xbox Live offers plenty of other content - demos, movie trailers, customisation for your 360, arcade games, etc.

      You specifically mention how WoW has difficulty supporting the load. This is a bullshit point, because it is an anecdote.

      You don't seriously believe this do you?

      Not all MMOs have difficulty supporting similar loads.

      Actually, this is the logical fallacy here. It's what is known as a strawman argument. I never claimed all MMOs have trouble. All I mentioned is WoW.

    16. Re:What about a true bridge? by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1

      But Xbox Live supports many more games, provides other content and helps Microsoft make money back on hardware sold at a loss.

    17. Re:What about a true bridge? by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1
      So you pay a monthly fee

      Actually, it's a yearly fee, equivalent to the price of one game. But that;s a minor point.

      for what is included in the price of other games.

      But this covers more than one game. And is subsidises the free services availble on Live, as well as helping Microsoft make back money on hardware sold at a loss. How exactly do you expect them to make money i they run Live at a loss as well?

      As much as I dislike Steam, XBOX Live seems a much greater customer ripoff.

      In what way? They're honest about what you're getting, it's a service that works very well, and it's very cheap while providing online capability for a lot of games.

    18. Re:What about a true bridge? by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1
      Paying for the ability to play online is stupid

      Why? Because you have some sort of constitutional right to play online? Because it's not fair for a company to try and make some money? Because you have some magic way of making bandwidth and servers free? Please enlighten us all.

      and the main reason I don't have XB

      You're too cheap to pay $50a year?

      was under the impression that the reason you had to pay to play online games on the XBox was because MS had to pay for it's server network.

      They have servers to run, bandwidth to pay for, admin and support staff to pay, money to make back on the Xbox and 360 since they were sold at a loss and they're perfectly entitled to try and urn a profit even if this wasn't the case.

      If all their servers are doing is matching people up to play games

      They match people up, maintain and provide statistics and rankings, store and transmit messages between players, provide additional content, etc.

      then it's quite a scam.

      Because you deserve everything for free? Because Microsoft have lied to their customers about it? Because the fee if prohibitively expensive? Well none of those reasons are true, so I'm struggling to see what it is that leads you to believe that it's a scam.

    19. Re:What about a true bridge? by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      each game XBL supports was paid for, that is no excuse if anything there should be better server support as newer games help subsidize older but popular games which sell below the original release price

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    20. Re:What about a true bridge? by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1

      That would only work if the publishers paid Microsoft a fee for making their games Xbox Live capable. And even then, it's still a one-off payment, and not a very big one at that. Games would either have to be made a bit more expensive for having Live or else the developers and publishers, having spent money on adding support for Live, would have to put up with reduced profit margins and hope that extra volume makes up for it.

    21. Re:What about a true bridge? by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      live would make the connections and aggregate the scores, the game servers would be run by the game publishers just like with PC games.

      also allow dedicated and non-dedicated user servers but mark them as user server.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    22. Re:What about a true bridge? by gabebear · · Score: 1

      "Because you have some magic way of making bandwidth and servers free? Please enlighten us all."

      MS isn't using up any appreciable bandwidth since users host the games. Microsoft may be "perfectly entitled to try and urn a profit[sic]", but it's still a scam because almost all developers would let you to play online for free if Microsoft would allow them to.

      I don't think I'm entitled to anything from MS, I simply won't pay their online tariff.

    23. Re:What about a true bridge? by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1
      live would make the connections and aggregate the scores, the game servers would be run by the game publishers just like with PC games.

      Then you'd lose the unified feel of Live, the ability to communicate between games and face the possibility of publishers closing servers after a while. You'd quite possibly be looking at multiple user ids being required, making it harder to ban cheats.

      also allow dedicated and non-dedicated user servers but mark them as user server.

      We've got user servers already :^) It's possible that that could end up slitting the player base. Not a problem for big games, but potentially for smaller ones.

    24. Re:What about a true bridge? by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1
      MS isn't using up any appreciable bandwidth since users host the games.

      Matchmaking requires bandwidth, as does transferring messages and downloading updates and new (free) content. Arcade games and new (non-free) content also requires bandwidth, but people pay for that already. I'm guessing trailers and demos are free as well and they certainly use a fair bit of bandwidth.

      Microsoft may be "perfectly entitled to try and urn a profit[sic]"

      It should have been 'turn,' in case you were wondering, rather than 'earn,' though it is amusing that it could be either.

      but it's still a scam

      Where do Microsoft lie or attempt to defraud their customers? If they're not, then there's no scam. People have the facts and make a choice about whether to use Live or not, or even whether to get a 360 or not. No-one is being scammed. Just because something is more expensive than you like, or even than you think it could be, doesn't make it immoral and certainly doesn't make it a scam. Microsoft are a business, not a charity, especially when it comes to their games division, which is making a loss. Turning Live from a revenue source into another expense would be a terrible business decision unless it resulted in a massive increase in the number of games being bought in order to make up for it.

      because almost all developers would let you to play online for free if Microsoft would allow them to.

      That doesn't make it a scam and it's pure speculation. Even if they did, it doesn't make what Microsoft is doing immoral. Having everyone running their own servers would probably result in a worse service as well.

      I don't think I'm entitled to anything from MS, I simply won't pay their online tariff.

      Given that you think them charging for Live is a scam, it certainly comes across as you thinking you're entitled to play online for free.

    25. Re:What about a true bridge? by ClamIAm · · Score: 1
      The problem here is that I figured you were smart enough to deduce what my argument was, so I didn't explicitly state it. This was a mistake. You obviously didn't understand my main point.

      All the examples I gave were reasons why a service like Live costs much less to run than an MMO, and why your use of WoW as a benchmark of comparison is bad. Your claim that more games == more servers needed is flawed, for these reasons. When the flaws are exposed, your argument falls apart.

      The first is that you used an anecdote for the "single game" side of your equation. WoW is not all MMOs, and all MMOs are not WoW. The fact that MMO X is experiencing server difficulties does not mean that all MMOs have trouble with server loads.

      The second reason your argument is flawed is that you fail to take into account the fundamental differences between the two things you are comparing. It's making a comparison between two completely different animals.

      Taking these things into consideration, claiming that "more games offered == more server power needed" is absurd.

    26. Re:What about a true bridge? by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1
      The problem here is that I figured you were smart enough to deduce what my argument was, so I didn't explicitly state it. This was a mistake. You obviously didn't understand my main point.

      1) Ad homenin. Attack the point, not the debater.
      2) I understood, but found ti full of logical fallacies.

      All the examples I gave were reasons why a service like Live costs much less to run than an MMO

      3) Strawman attack. I never compared Live to generic MMOs 4) I never claimed Live costs as much as an MMO or even WoW to run. I suspect there may be some understanding here. I wasn't claiming it would cost vastly more than WoW to run servers for all games. I was claiming that it would cost more than $50 a year to run the servers, citing WoW as an example of how hard it is to maintain a reliable popular service for a greater cost.

      Your claim that more games == more servers needed is flawed

      Where exactly did I make that claim? I said that Live supports more than one game, but I didn't say it needs more servers than a single MMO. My point was that it supports sufficient games to bring the server traffic up to a level where running all the servers gets expensive. More expensive than hosting servers for just Halo 2. More expensive than $50 a year.

      The first is that you used an anecdote for the "single game" side of your equation.

      You're still beating away at that strawman.

      WoW is not all MMOs, and all MMOs are not WoW. The fact that MMO X is experiencing server difficulties does not mean that all MMOs have trouble with server loads.

      Nice facts, but totally irrelevant since I never claimed WoW is all MMOs, all MMOs are WoW or that all MMOs have trouble with server loads.

      The second reason your argument is flawed is that you fail to take into account the fundamental differences between the two things you are comparing. It's making a comparison between two completely different animals.

      You're a little fixated on WoW. Did you bother to read the rest of my post? My point about WoW is that it's hard to reiably maintain a popular service, even with more than $50 coming in. I then made many other points, explaining why Live cost a fair bit of money to run and used enough bandwidth to justify charging for. You've ignored those points and attacked an imaginary argument. If you have any interest in reasoned debate, address those points.

      Taking these things into consideration

      You haven't taken into account anything I said.

      claiming that "more games offered == more server power needed" is absurd.

      Putting quote marks round something doesn't magically mean I said it, or provide any context. If you understand my claims, then try addressing them rather than what you would like them to be.

    27. Re:What about a true bridge? by gabebear · · Score: 1

      Matchmaking and IMs don't use any amount of bandwidth that would justify paying for it and new content isn't generally free.

      The XBoxs are the only consoles you have to pay to play online for; All EA Sports games, Sims, SOCOM, SC:Pandora Tomorrow, Xmen, rise of the imperfects... There are only a handful of pay to play games outside of the XBox world.

    28. Re:What about a true bridge? by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1
      Matchmaking and IMs don't use any amount of bandwidth that would justify paying for it

      It costs money for bandwidth, servers, maintenance and R&D and the gamin division is making a loss, so Microsoft has to make money from somewhere.

      and new content isn't generally free

      Sometimes it is. And things like demos and trailers are, IIRC.

      The XBoxs are the only consoles you have to pay to play online for

      Online support on other consoles is very poor compared to Live. None of them offer a comparable service.

      .. There are only a handful of pay to play games outside of the XBox world.

      But there each game is doing it's own thing. Live is a unified service with features you wouldn't get if each developer and publisher worked by themselves.

      To be honest, it amazes me that paying $15 a month to play a single MMORPG is seen as acceptable, while $50 a year to play many games online with a unified service is seen as extortionate. I would love Live to be free, but I accept that it costs money for Microsoft to run, their game division is losing money and it's actually a good service, so I'm happy to pay for it.

    29. Re:What about a true bridge? by ClamIAm · · Score: 1
      I wrote:

      Your claim that more games == more servers needed is flawed

      You replied:

      Where exactly did I make that claim? I said that Live supports more than one game, but I didn't say it needs more servers than a single MMO.

      Let's look at your original post:

      Look at WoW. People pay significantly more than $50 a year, but the dedicated servers for it have a great deal of difficulty supporting the load. Xbox Live supports many more games. Running servers for all of them would be vastly more expensive.

      If you're going to constantly shift your argument around, I think I'm finished here.

    30. Re:What about a true bridge? by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1
      more games == more servers

      That's a very blanket statement with no context and no meaning, which I never made. What I did say was:

      Xbox Live supports many more games.

      However my next statement was not 'therefore they need more servers than an MMO,' as you have tried to claim. It was in fact:

      Running servers for all of them would be vastly more expensive.

      Hmm, nothing there about needing 'more servers,' 'more servers than an MMO,' or 'more servers than WoW.' In fact all I've said is that running servers for a lot of games would cost more than $50 a year, as I explained in my previous post, which you quoted from. Did you bother to read it?

      All of this can fairly trivially be discerned from the very quotes that you selected, so would you care to explain I'm shifting my argument around?

      Oh and you've continued to completely ignore the various points I made:

      • Updates cost money to produce, but are free to download.
      • New content costs money to produce and distribute, but sometimes is free.
      • Game demos cost money to produce and distribute, but are free.
      • Movie trailers cost money to produce and distribute, but are free.
      • Customisation content costs money to produce and distribute, but are free.
      • Messaging and voice chat requires storage space and bandwidth to transmit, but is free.
      • Maintenance for servers and applications running this all costs money.
      • R&D to improve the Live experience costs money.
      • Advertising to promote Live costs money.
      • Billing and support staff need paid.
      • The Microsoft games division is losing money and needs to make it back somewhere.

      You see, even if your argument at the top held water (which it doesn't, since it's a strawman attack), there would still be all these points backing me up.

  5. Who cares by SQLz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The real question is, who gives a shit?

    1. Re:Who cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real question is, who gives a shit?

      The people who pay for an Xbox, Halo2, and to play on Xbox Live, perhaps?

    2. Re:Who cares by tgpo · · Score: 1

      Everyone knows that Higher Halo ranking = Larger Penis

      --
      -tgpo
    3. Re:Who cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean I didn't have to waste $5000 on that Quad SLI setup?

    4. Re:Who cares by Zork+the+Almighty · · Score: 1

      According to the spam in my inbox, for $5000 you could have a penis the size of a city block.

      --

      In Soviet America the banks rob you!
  6. The Waaahmbulance by otis+wildflower · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I was wondering what all those terms meant!

  7. BANED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    U R BANED!!!!!

  8. Cheaters make it interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I remember a few months back me and my friends were playing CTF on Relic. We were up against some cheaters who got a flying warthog (the jeep for, for those who don't play). Well, there's nothing like the thrill of grabbing the flag, turning around and seeing a flying warthog right behind you. We ended up tying that game, and let me tell you, that was better than any win would be against non-cheaters.

    (That of coarse isn't the norm. Getting "stand-by"'ed as they call it really sucks, and some cheaters make it so you spawn in the air and die instantally.)

  9. Doh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And this is why having tabs can suck sometimes. This was supposed to be attached to This article but I'd accidentally clicked the tab.

    Really, I'm not that stupidly offtopic in most cases :-)

  10. I don't understand it by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 3, Insightful
    First off what kind of ADSL modem comes with a standbye switch?

    If I cut off my internet or slow it down (I know that is possible) then how the fuck does that affect everyone else in the game?

    This could only work if you happen to host the game. In PC multiplayer game the guy hosting it offcourse always has the least lag but surely anyone hosting a game that routinely drops out would very quickly be ranked down?

    Anyway you pay for x-box live but still got to host your own games? Surely for the money MS should be hosting the games so everyone plays on a level playing field?

    So my question is this. A does this only work for the guy hosting the game, B why does bungie not host the game for you C why doesn't bungie drop people who host games on a connection that drops out?

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:I don't understand it by chill · · Score: 3, Informative

      Motorola Surfboard cable modems, for one. There are several others. It is a "security" measure so your super-vulnerable Windows PC isn't open to evil hackers late at night. You punch the button when you leave for any length of time and it suspends the connection.

      Halo 2 is a peer-2-peer game, where one of the people playing is the "host". It varies as to who gets to be the host, but the point is there is no dedicated server other than the one doing authentication and charging your credit card.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    2. Re:I don't understand it by PSXer · · Score: 1
      B) $$$

      In addition to cheaters, it's fun to have to wait 30 seconds for it to find a new houst every time the guy who's hosting decides to quit.

    3. Re:I don't understand it by merreborn · · Score: 1

      Wow, FPSing on player-run servers?

      Come on. PC FPSers have being using dedicated servers for over a *decade* now.

      And what's up with this "if your connection drops out, you can run around and shoot anyone" crap? Even quake 1 had this right in the mid nineties -- if your connection drops out, you don't get to move.

      All in all, it sounds like they made some of the *worst* design choices *ever* in FPS multiplayer. Mindblowing.

    4. Re:I don't understand it by toucci · · Score: 1

      Playing an online game, your computer communicates with the host and no other players directly. If your connection to the server is fine (in live's case, while hosting, it always is since the server is at localhost), the game will play fine. Introducing lag simply because the game detects others are lagging would be ludicrous.

    5. Re:I don't understand it by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

      My cheap, crappy cable modem does. Or rather, the cable company's cheap, crappy cable modem does.

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    6. Re:I don't understand it by AJanuary · · Score: 1

      The article seems very confusing. Some details seem not to work in mine, and it seems, others head. But from reading the article, one technique seems doable: The host runs the connection through the PC and then temporarily blocks the connection to certain players.

    7. Re:I don't understand it by xtieburn · · Score: 1

      'if your connection drops out, you don't get to move.'

      Um thats the point. The moment someone lags out in a Quake match someone can come up behind them and get an easy frag. Its exactly the same thing thats going on here only the host is controlling who lags out and who doesnt. The only time everyone lags in a Quake match is if the host is down. Which also happens in Halo. There is no difference its kind of 'mindblowing' that you didnt realise that.

      The only reason this didnt happen in Quake is because there isnt a global overseeing score board like there is in Halo2. In Quake you essentially have a world full of random matches with tournaments fully monitored stuck in throughout the place. (Much like the real world.) In Halo you have every single player in the world with a set standing. Kind of like a tournament that includes every single game type, every single game and every single player. Thats impossible to monitor in its entirety, and thus cheating gets out of hand.

      If you consider these to be bad design choices then please suggest some ways you could do it better that dont involve lagging everyone just because one person has a bad connection.

  11. mandatory grammar flamebait by one-eye-johnson · · Score: 2, Funny

    "...letters from 13-year-olds that have been baned" Ah, the irony!

    1. Re:mandatory grammar flamebait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish I wasn't one of those AC bastards....the parent made me spit rum & coke out my nose.

  12. come on people by KevMar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What these cheaters done understand is that the ranking is there to place you against players of even skill. by ranking up, they get placed against players of better skill. at that point they have to cheat keep the rank.

    I was a average player. I could school all my real life friends, but they didn't have halo. I reached a rank where the matches were even and it was fun. I got a little better by getting the shotgun and hiding in the corner. It worked every time, until I moved up a rank. It never worked in that bracket, the players were better and knew the trick. I was at the loosing end even when i played like normal and eventualy droped back down to where I belonged.

    They have it all wrong, they should drop rank to clean up on the less skiled players. Atleast they run in a circle and you dont have to risk the banhammer.

    --
    Im a gamer, not a grammer major. This post is full of spelling and grammer mistakes.
    1. Re:come on people by Have+Blue · · Score: 1

      People already do that. You can spot them easily- they're the ones who spawn, throw a grenade at the wall, and kill themselves over and over again, or who just fuck around and get killed instead of pulling their weight. And if they happen to be on your team, they'll drag you down with them in their quest to throw the game and pwn more noobs. It's annoying as fuck, but there's no feasible way to force a player to play at the best of his ability if he doesn't want to, and no way to determine that a string of losses is due to malice instead of just having an off day.

  13. Ah, the lure of being #1, even if you cheat by garylian · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The article sums itself up by saying that they don't understand why people would cheat and artificially inflate their rating.

    Duh! To be at the top!

    How many times do you see on gaming forums some clown posting "FIRST!" or "First Page!", like it matters. Just about every Blizzard post on their forums has that stupidity going on, and you even see it happening on non-competition sites like the forums for Order of the Stick webcomic.

    It's all about having bragging rights, or as I like to call it, "showing off the size of your e-penis".

    It's almost homo-erotic at this point. (Not that there is anything wrong with being gay, btw.) Before the computer game evolution, guys usually tried to have bragging rights in some sport, and a lot of the hot "cheerleader" type chicks dug the guy with the letterman jacket. The guys tended to get buff, be athletic, and do something worthy of praise. (They also tended to be morons, but that's besides the point.) They competed with each other to gain the attention of women, mostly.

    Now, we have the same behavior going on, but with computer gamers. They have to be the best, be the coolest, etc. Except, there aren't a lot of chicks out there that will drool all over them. What they get is other guys wishing to be like them, instead of chicks wanting to be with them. There isn't a big call from girls to date the guy with a high Halo2 ranking, but the H.S. quarterback still gets a hot chick more often than not.

    I don't know about you, but when I was in H.S. or college, I didn't want the adulation of other guys. I wanted to be noticed by chicks. But hey, that was just me.

    1. Re:Ah, the lure of being #1, even if you cheat by Lisandro · · Score: 3, Funny

      First reply! Yaaay!

  14. A more complete list of cheating techniques by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The linked article only talks about bridging+standby, which is one of the oldest and easiest to execute forms of cheating. It's also rather lacking on the technical side. Here's a quick rundown of what I know:

    === Network manipulation ===
    Bridging One player on a team sets up their router/firewall so that their xbox can only communicate with bungie, XboxLive, and a specific other player on the team. This results in that other player being selected as the game server for every match.

    Standby The bridged host can interrupt network traffic to some or all players in the game. Because they're the server, their game keeps running for several seconds while everyone else gets the "standby, reconnecting to game" screen.

    Lagging Out The bridged host selectively manipulates network traffic to players in the game and observes the on-screen network quality indicator. After isolating the IP address of a player on the other team, they block network traffic to that player, causing them to "lag out" of the game. After reducing the other team to one or two players they're pretty much guaranteed a win.

    Team Lagging Same as lagging out, but instead of blocking traffic, just increase network latency to players on the opposing team. Not as effective as other mechanisms but VERY hard for Bungie to spot.
    === Game manipulation ===
    Mods The bridged host has map files are modified to give them an advantage. Examples:
    spawnmods: player start points are modified to make the spawning player defenseless or unable to move.
    weapon mods: auto-aim, rapid fire, increased damage, changed projectile type
    other: vehicles where there shouldn't be, running faster than normal, jumping higher than normal

    Superbouncing Makes it possible to reach extremely high areas in certain maps. Caused by a bug in the physics engine. === Ranking manipulation ===
    Boosting a group of dishonest player teams with an otherwise-honest and/or unskilled player. The dishonest players carry the match, but the other player still gets the ranking benefit.

    De-ranking A group of skilled players intentionally throws matches to decrease their rank. This results in matching against lesser skilled players, and is often used for boosting.

  15. I've got a true bridge... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... that I'd like to sell to whoever at Bungie designed this ridiculous system. First rule of Network Club: DO NOT TRUST THE CLIENT. Second rule of Network Club: DO NOT LET UNTRUSTED USERS RUN SERVERS. Third rule of Network Club: if you disagree with the first two rules, don't feel bad... somebody has to make all those Happy Meals at McDonald's.

    Talk about the non-story of the day...

  16. Cheating Feedback by SEWilco · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The article mentions users can report cheating with feedback. Probably some kinds of cheating are difficult to detect, and some are not technological cheats. When someone is reported as being a cheater, that should give them a significant probability (10%? 20%?) of Matchmaking placing them in a game filled only with other cheaters. That keeps them out of the way for a little while and gives them a learning experience. If they come out worse... repeated reports of cheating should increase the probability of getting cheater games. And some "cheater games" should have Bungie monitors and probably also special Bungie hosts machines.

    What kinds of cheating is not technological? Stalking or harrassing a teammate instead of getting the token/bomb/flag, offering to tell opponents where teammates are in exchange for not being killed, teaching about the map (three players climbing a trail in a corner) in a public game instead of playing the game, quitting early so teammates quickly become outnumbered, screaming so nobody can hear useful information.

    1. Re:Cheating Feedback by dalroth5 · · Score: 1
      "When someone is reported as being a cheater, that should give them a significant probability (10%? 20%?) of Matchmaking placing them in a game filled only with other cheaters. That keeps them out of the way for a little while..."

      So obviously another way to cheat is to spoof your IP/MAC address a few times and report some other innocent schmuck. I suppose this just reminds us of why we and our PCs will never be secure: whatever the human mind can invent, another human mind can circumvent.

      --
      "We reject kings, presidents and voting. We believe in rough consensus and running code." Dave Clark, IETF
  17. Cheat proof??? NAH! by Holmesey · · Score: 0

    There is no such thing as "cheat proof." Cheaters, hackers and chip installers always find a way around anything. "Where theres a will, theres a way."

    --
    Talk later, Holmesey For free Domain names, PSP's & I-Pod's click
  18. One caveat... by Hakubi_Washu · · Score: 1

    You know how often really good people are accused of using aimbots? Just reporting someone as cheater should not trigger anything but an investigation, which should have to prove guilt. If cheating cannot be proven, then no penalties (like being forced to play with other "cheaters") should be applied. "In dubio pro reo".

    1. Re:One caveat... by Athanasius · · Score: 1

      Indeed. As soon as you make reporting cause an automatic action then some dickheads will use said reporting specifically to hassle others.

  19. Not hard at all... by sd.fhasldff · · Score: 1
    Team Lagging
    Same as lagging out, but instead of blocking traffic, just increase network latency to players on the opposing team. Not as effective as other mechanisms but VERY hard for Bungie to spot.

    Yes, because calculating the average latency for the team the host is playing for (minus the host player, since he is unique) and comparing it with the average latency for the other team is really difficult and couldn't be automated at all. Throw in some correlation calculations and you could get a pretty darn good idea of any latency-boosting taking place.

    1. Re:Not hard at all... by weierstrass · · Score: 1

      Yes, and there couldn't be any explanation of why the average ping of one team is slightly lower than that of the other team, could there?

      Like say, you are on a team with other guys from your high school and one of you is hosting, and the other team are from further away?

      --
      my password really is 'stinkypants'
  20. Cheatrz versus Spelrz by Vexar · · Score: 2, Funny
    I don't know what would be worse, listening to puerile vulgarities, or seeing "tomorrow's future" stumble with elementary spelling and grammar. They should make video games that encorporate the basics of English. Then the "cheaters" would be the ones with either Webster's 10th Collegiate or a short copy of The Elements of Style onhand.

    I can see it now:
    You're cornered, they have loads of BFG'sbig, frightful grammatics aimed at your sorry melon. What to do? What to do? Ooh, the temptation... You reach for it, just this once. Oh, of course! Should-would clauses are for sissies!
    "I never end a sentence with a preposition, my mother told me not to," you shout. Suddenly, a piercing ray of in-game sunlight rips across the digital wasteland. Your opponents are mercilessly fried, no Fricasseed!
    Days later, your account gets banned. You whine with the best of them, but to no avail. Your own incompetence incriminates you, as your seemingly victorious sentence is diagrammed, nay eviscerated before you.