Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Video Game Cheaters Outed By Logic Bombs

Posted by timothy on from the curiosity-burns-as-hot-as-malice dept.

Lirodon writes: A Reddit user decided to tackle the issue of cheaters within Valve's multiplayer shooter Counter Strike: Global Offensive in their own unique way: by luring them towards fake "multihacks" that promised a motherlode of cheating tools, but in reality, were actually traps designed to cause the users who installed them to eventually receive bans. The first two were designed as time bombs, which activated functions designed to trigger bans after a specific time of day. The third, which was downloaded over 3,500 times, caused instantaneous bans.

147 of 224 comments (clear)

  1. Video Game Entrapment? by blueshift_1 · · Score: 4, Informative

    I hope we can get Sean Connery to play the lead role again...

    1. Re:Video Game Entrapment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I wish he'd do this for Team Fortress 2.

      So annoying to have people have the auto-aim cheat going on.

    2. Re:Video Game Entrapment? by B33rNinj4 · · Score: 1

      I enjoyed that film...very much.

  2. Video game cheater ousted by video game cheater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That's some fine trolling, but if you believe the guy is not a cheater himself you're very naive.

    1. Re:Video game cheater ousted by video game cheater by mukinrestak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I've made several cheats (mostly using cheat engine, because it's a fine program) but that doesn't mean I cheat in everything, nor that I cheat in games vs other people. It's quite possible that he feels, as I do, that not winning a match through one's own skill is not winning at all. There's no fun in shit-talking a friend about kicking their ass when you don't legitimately kick it.

  3. Assholes against assholes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Looks like a classical case of vigilantism.

    1. Re:Assholes against assholes by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      Looks like a classical case of mafia.

    2. Re:Assholes against assholes by mSparks43 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This is the #1 reason I gave up on PC gaming and went Linux desktop and PS4 for gaming.

    3. Re:Assholes against assholes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's what prompted me to enjoy either standalone or Local Network Multiplayer games. The rest of the world cheats.

    4. Re:Assholes against assholes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How is using a honeypot vigilantism? These people needed to actively seek out hacks to get banned, nobody made them download the fake hack kit. Imo, they got what they deserved.

    5. Re:Assholes against assholes by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I'm not gonna go with the vigilantism but...

      "These people actively seek out pirated software, nobody made them download the trojan."

      They're not entirely dissimilar concepts. They're also both true.

      Is it okay if someone's getting pwned because they opened the keygen and ran it? A part of me says that it is not only okay but that it serves them right for pirating software and doing so in a dumb manner. I suspect that's the vigilante side of me.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    6. Re:Assholes against assholes by cwsumner · · Score: 1

      Looks like a classical case of vigilantism.

      The problem with vigilanties, is that too often they get the wrong person.
      Since, in this case, the criminals chose their own punishment, I don't think that is a problem.

  4. Why do I care abou this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    If doesn't help prevent cheating in tux racer or bzflag why do I care? This tool was probably written in Rust too, wasn't it? Don't lie

  5. Just a fucking game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's bad enough you play it religiously, but cheating in it to get ahead? What a fucking loser.

    It's the equivalent of cheating at old people's bingo night. Actually, it's even worse because at least if you cheat at bingo you have a chance to win money.

    1. Re:Just a fucking game by RogueyWon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Way back in the distant dawn of time (or at least, of competitive Counter-Strike play), I ran a major UK Counter-Strike league. Cheating was a pretty big issue back then (not least because software anit-cheat was much less developed) and we spent a lot of time on the watch for it. In the 18 months or so I was running the league, we had maybe 10 cheat detections during competitive play. The guys running the "open" public servers sponsored by the same company were getting a similar number of detections in the average week.

      By and large, I think there were three reasons why people cheated. The first was simple curiosity; people who were bored of playing the game honestly and just wanted to see what the cheats were like. There probably weren't too many of these.

      The largest group were the trolls; the people who cheated not because it was fun in itself, but because they got off on pissing off other people and screwing up their leisure time. Some of them would try to hide their cheating, but a lot of them were pretty damned open about it. After all, it's annoying to play a guy you think might be cheating. It's even worse to play a guy who is open and proud about the fact he's cheating, in a world where it can take time (up to an hour, on the public servers) to summon an admin.

      The third kind were the properly competitive gamers who felt they were struggling to keep up with the pack and thought that by making subtle use of cheats, they could give themselves an edge. This was the only kind we tended to see in the competitive league. "Pro-gaming" was in its infancy back then, but was already becoming "a thing" and there was sponsorship and prize money floating around. There were lots of players who frankly weren't good enough who thought they could make a fist of pro-gaming. When it became clear that they weren't cut out for it (you need both a hell of a lot of practice time and god's own natural reflexes to cut it in that world), they'd often resort to cheats. They would always try to hide the fact they were cheating, so unless you got a rare software detection, discerning cheating from good or lucky play was hard (but not impossible) for an admin.

    2. Re:Just a fucking game by Methadras · · Score: 1

      When are people going to learn that human nature tends towards the path of least resistance. That means that the we as humans tend to be geared towards taking the easy way rather than a better way out, even if that better way might actually be an easy way. The enticement of 'cheating' to get ahead is a concept as old as humanity itself. If someone cheats to get ahead, the real moral/ethical question should be is that within the context of using cheating to get ahead in a game is concerned, is it really a problem? How about cheating in business? Among colleagues? Science? Sports? Academia? Politics? Relationships? War? In reality, the question is always asked, where is it okay to cheat and where is it okay not to cheat. Is there a grey area? No one likes it because it flies in the face of the moral/ethical question of inherent fairness, but is that really an inducement to not allow it to happen to get ahead or get an advantage? For example, in matters of espionage, do you really want a non-cheating environment in a fair and level playing field? What would the consequences of that be? We need to think that as a society what is an appropriate arena to cheat in and what isn't. In America at least we have a really skewed sense of where it is applied where and how it's accepted. We know that if you get caught cheating say within a criminal environment that is seen as both a virtue and at the same time a liability because if you get caught or are outted, that can have fatal consequences, but it's done anyway with total abandon. In the field of business, it is done all the time and many times it's encouraged, other times it is frowned upon, but allowed and in most cases it is seen as a criminal act. Case in point, Martha Stewart. I'm just using these examples to paint the picture of what a morally relative mine field the context of cheating is, when to cheat, when not to cheat, whether it's acceptable/not acceptable and under what conditions. As Americans we have a really hard time with it and it's various unwritten rules.

    3. Re:Just a fucking game by strikethree · · Score: 1

      I used to run some very popular Counter Strike servers on the US West Coast from about 1.3 to 1.6 and even Source for a short while. I have a SteamID smaller than my original Slashdot ID.

      I found the best way to discover cheaters was to spectate with cheats on, especially wall hacks. People would inevitably move their attention around based on what they could see. Sometimes, it was as obvious as a watching a guns crosshairs follow someone through a wall around a corner and then instant headshot. Other times, it was more subtle, like in de_aztec, where a terrorist would be behind the double doors entering the wide open space while clearly looking at the counter terrorists approaching the room on the other side of the bridge, somewhere that person would normally have no business looking/tracking unless they could see through walls.

      I also had a neat little plugin that would tell you how long a person's crosshairs would remain on another person and I hacked it to tell me how long it would stay trained on any particular hitbox (mainly head). I then "trained" it by using it on some of my best league players and tuning it down further and further until they stopped triggering it. I then turned it on for everyone and if the plugin triggered, that person was placed under intense scrutiny. Found a few amazing players that way but 98% (number pulled from ass) were cheats.

      Cheating sucks. When you do it, there is no feeling of achievement and when it happens against you, it feels depressing because there is almost no way to win. I am glad that someone created a "cheat" that outed the person trying to cheat. Serves them right. The only problem is that a lot of these games are free to play so they just create a new Steam account and cheat some more. *sigh*

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
  6. Not a big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Speaking as someone who did his fair share of botting back in the day (good 'ol uscript aimbots on America's Army) this really doesn't mean a whole lot. Only an idiot is going to use a serious account. Everyone else uses disposal burners.

    1. Re:Not a big deal by bloodhawk · · Score: 4, Interesting

      So being a cheater yourself, tell us what the fuck inspires you. It's a game, what possible enjoyment is there in cheating to win? why play at all?

    2. Re:Not a big deal by phishybongwaters · · Score: 1

      And that's why CS:go is a fucking shitshow, even ignoring the fact that it's a fucking pile of shit even at 15$. The hacks in some cases cost more than the fucking game. And also a big fuck you for having to cheat to enjoy your game.

    3. Re:Not a big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The joy isn't in winning, it's in ruining the game for others and possibly making them quit in frustration. It's the same reason forum trolls exist.

    4. Re:Not a big deal by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh, come now ... people are selfish bastards, and if there are rules, someone is always trying to get around them.

      Don't go expecting noble acts from video gamers or the internet just because you seem outraged.

      This is really no different than real life ... someone is always trying to bypass the rules and not get caught.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    5. Re:Not a big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's right. Cheaters were discarded by the DoD and hired by the NSA instead.

    6. Re:Not a big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No we're not. We like playing these games, and cheaters ruin the games for us. So, we like seeing them get their asses banned, so we can actually play. The fact that you don't care doesn't mean we care too much.

    7. Re:Not a big deal by dpidcoe · · Score: 1

      heh, some of the best fun I ever had on the internet was participating in one of the big anti-cheat communities for that game. I tried really hard to keep us from becoming like the power tripping asshats that the other big anti-cheat community was known for being. It was really sad to see the game start on a downhill slide firsthand after the 2.1 patch.

    8. Re:Not a big deal by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      It's not about whether people are bastards or not, obvious pricks exist everywhere. But a game is supposed to be entertainment, Why bother playing a game if you are not actually playing the game? perhaps the A/C's reply is right they do it not to play but to troll and piss others off.

    9. Re:Not a big deal by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      But a game is supposed to be entertainment, Why bother playing a game if you are not actually playing the game?

      Because not everybody wants to play the way the game designers meant.

      When I play Skyrim I now just ignore the major quests and mostly just explore and collect stuff and level up ... because the free-roaming aspect of it is what I consider more "fun" than trying to beat the quests. Who needs a plot line when I can just go kill some time wandering around? I make a point to not accidentally advance the plot any more.

      perhaps the A/C's reply is right they do it not to play but to troll and piss others off.

      Well, yeah .. for some people the cheating or messing with other people is the fun part.

      I used to play some tabletop games with friends, and they could never figure out my "strategy" ... they were shocked when I told then "I don't play to win, I play to wound". Mostly I just randomly screwed up outcomes and their carefully made plans by utterly defying expectations.

      There will always be people for whom the disruptive element is the whole point, or those who cheat because they can.

      As I said, people are selfish bastards.

      That for some annoying others is a goal surprises you ... well, are you new to the internet or something? The internet is a giant "annoy other people" machine.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    10. Re:Not a big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I never 'got' cheating in a 'real' game.

      When me and my friends cheated we *ALL* cheated together. We would agree on before hand which cheats were acceptable. It was a good way to extend the life of a game that we were pretty close to being done with. Knowing everyone is cheating really changes the dynamic of the game and what your strategies are. Some people would try to 'skill up' as it were and not use cheats against the cheaters. Usually something like "I am not going to cheat this round and see how far I get".

      Cheating in a group can be some seriously good fun. However, unless the people you are playing against know it, then you are just being a jerk.

    11. Re:Not a big deal by ewibble · · Score: 1

      I don't cheat, or even play, but some people I know who do, and write there own hacks, developing hack is more interesting than the game.

    12. Re:Not a big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Cheating at single player games (say, to see more content) isn't so bad because you're not ruining anything for anybody else. Just don't post your ill gotten high score :)

      Cheat at multiplayer, especially MMOs where you can't simply leave the cheat-affected server, and you're simply being a douchebag.

    13. Re:Not a big deal by phishybongwaters · · Score: 4, Insightful

      None of your examples hold weight against a competitive multiplayer game that's play professionally in an e-sports type manner. What you are talking about is griefing or trolling, and I agree 100%, that's just part of life. Actually manipulating the game code be it with mods or actually rebuilding the source, is something completely different. So, ignoring your examples because they don't apply, we can start to argue if this is in fact stealing, because that's what you are really doing, you are screwing other people out of the game THEY purchased. With that said, you do have to give some of these modders credit for the work they've done to get their hacks out there. I respect that, right up until they start illegally profiting from a derivative work they have no legal license to use. Playing skyrim and ignoring the main quests is NOT the same as playing a competitive game FOR MONEY with hacks doing the work for you. The fact you tried to argue this leads me to suspect you are the type of person who would buy these hacks.

    14. Re:Not a big deal by phishybongwaters · · Score: 1

      Well what point are you referring to? Because my comment was mostly shaming the asshole who admitted to creating aimbots. But since you asked nicely, in AC fashion no less: AsshatA spends 50$ on hacks for a 15 dollar game. Do you think he gives two shits about being banned? He can buy 3 keys for the game for the same price as his aimbot, and that's ignoring the game selling places that sell you possibly stolen keys for considerable discounts. If I spent 50$ on my hacks, you bet your ass I'm willing to spend at least that on the game, seeing as the hacks are useless without the game they ruin. And that's the rub. Do they ban on MAC addresses? Nope. They ban your Valve account, which stops no one. This is why CSgo is crap, they had to actually make a minigame out of this, overwatch, and put it on the community to review the reported hackers. THat's how bad it is, they've offloaded it to the players and there's so much of it, it's become a game of it's own. THAT. IS. FUCKED. SO.. yeah, the point is without Mr Vigilante all we can really expect is that the hacker will be forced to use a new account, which he likely already has.

    15. Re:Not a big deal by malditaenvidia · · Score: 1

      But then you'd have to stay awake long enough to execute the cheats.

    16. Re:Not a big deal by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Look, if people will cheat for FUN, they'll sure as hell cheat for MONEY.

      EVERY endeavor with rules has had someone cheat. The Olympics, car racing, the fucking stock market ... all of it.

      Are you so naive as to think that the higher the stakes the less likely someone is to cheat? Because if you are, you need to get out into the fucking real world and look at what humans are really like.

      Yes, they're all very bad people who should be punished with spankings and sentenced to hard labor to atone for their sins ... now grow the hell up and stop acting like you just fell of the hay wagon.

      I don't play online games because a) I have no desire to interact with some smart ass 12 year old half way around the world who can kick my ass, and b) because I prefer to pick up a game, play for a couple of hours, and put it down. On-line gaming provides no value to me. In fact, it's a negative.

      The fact you tried to argue this leads me to suspect you are the type of person who would buy these hacks.

      The fact that you felt the need to make an ad hominem attack tells me you're fucking asshole with an inflated sense of self importance, in addition to a woefully incomplete picture of what human nature really is.

      I'm not advocating cheating in multi-player games.

      But I am saying people who are shocked it happens are probably idiots.

      Of course my Skyrim example is nothing like cheating where money is on the line, because it was about why people might choose to define "fun" other than the game designer intended.

      But if you think your moral outrage will change the world ... good luck with that. Humans will ALWAYS cheat in large enough samples.

      Acting like they don't is naive and childish.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    17. Re:Not a big deal by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      But a game is supposed to be entertainment, Why bother playing a game if you are not actually playing the game?

      "Nerd rage is the best rage." When you beat someone in an online game, and they just start raging, saying senseless things to you, and you know they want to throw their keyboard out the window.....

      Online team games are even worse, like League of Legends, where you are teamed with a random stranger. Then your teammates will purposely play badly (even attacking their own teammates) just to produce the rage.

      Remember that a lot of these people are teenagers, or even pre-teens (some are so young they can't even read the hate you spew at them). They still haven't figured out how to survive in the world, and strange rage entertains them.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    18. Re:Not a big deal by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      But if you think your moral outrage will change the world

      LOL

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    19. Re:Not a big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Except let's build on your analogy.

      It's more akin to going out and buying all the football paraphernalia to watch the football game, then devoting hours and hours to ruining your friend's entertainment.

      The truth is people who dedicated real time to trolling and cheating are fucking pathetic. I mean seriously, truly, horribly pathetic, and they know it. Honestly a normal person with a health social life will do other things to entertain themselves.

      We should all feel sorry for these losers because if they weren't trolling and cheating, they'd probably be self harming and raping small animals.

    20. Re:Not a big deal by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      Are you so naive as to think that the higher the stakes the less likely someone is to cheat?

      no, i think that the higher the stakes, the higher the scrutiny and the less chance of cheating successfully.

    21. Re:Not a big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There is a world of difference between a single player cheat versus multiplayer. The problem is that "cheating" on a single player game has been conflated with actual cheating (depriving others of enjoyment) on multiplayer. As a DRM mechanism, since various games are moving even single player games to servers, even just using a trainer to look at some oddball terrain will get one banned.

      It just is another part of the game industry, which desperately needs another 1983.

    22. Re:Not a big deal by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Sure ... but it always comes down to "trust, but verify". Which really means you can't trust.

      People will keep trying to cheat, and sometimes might even find ways to make it work. The higher the stakes, the higher the reward.

      I consider it an unfortunate fact of human nature that, someone, somewhere will ALWAYS be motivated to cheat. Correspondingly, I think people would cheat just because you had rules.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    23. Re:Not a big deal by Powercntrl · · Score: 1

      So being a cheater yourself, tell us what the fuck inspires you. It's a game, what possible enjoyment is there in cheating to win? why play at all?

      Some people don't have the time to invest in practicing. You're working 40+ hour weeks and could be playing against prepubescent twerps who spend every waking moment on the game. Even game developers have realized this and added pay-to-win shit to some games. Grind or spend, baby.

      I never really got into any of the online MMO or FPS games, but I do play Angry Birds 2 once in awhile on my phone. I've got a hack for unlimited in-game currency, and it gives a bit of an advantage in the multiplayer "arena", since I can play every battle with all the premium power-ups. Of course, this isn't really a cheating hack, since Donald Trump could easily do the same thing, if he traded his presidential ambitions for an Angry Birds addiction.

      --

      ---
      DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
    24. Re:Not a big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There have been a variety of "cheats" for EVE over the years. The most recent one I remember was something that ran in memory and allowed you to autopilot direct from gate to gate instead of the standard autopilot warp which lands you 30 km from gates. EVE banned a shitload of people for this. They even catch people that use mouse scripts to continuously click the warp button to achieve the same goal. They have a lot of monitoring built into the client that gets sent back to Reykjavik for analysis.

    25. Re:Not a big deal by godel_56 · · Score: 2

      Actually, America's Army was a US military recruitment tool.

      Cheating in that game could be considered patriotic, educational trolling of the DoD to teach them that video games are a terribly useless way to find new recruits.

      Bravo, good sir! The b-tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of simulated patriots and aimbotting tyrants.

      In a real war, cheating is considered a good thing. It means fewer of your troops going home in body bags vs the enemy.

      General Patton: “No dumb bastard ever won a war by going out and dying for his country. He won it by making some other dumb bastard die for his country.”

    26. Re:Not a big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's not about whether people are bastards or not, obvious pricks exist everywhere. But a game is supposed to be entertainment, Why bother playing a game if you are not actually playing the game?

      Some people find the entertainment in simply playing against real humans (instead of software), whether they win or lose. Those people are by far the minority.
      Some people find the entertainment in watching other people lose, regardless of how that happens. These are the cheaters.
      Some people find the entertainment in watching other people getting pissed off. These are the trolls.
      Some people find the entertainment in Being Superior to the other players. They are the majority. These are the people who complain loudest about the cheaters and trolls, and quite frequently brag about how 'Legit' they are, and are the most likely to rage-quit when they lose while hurling accusations about cheating. (Side note- these are the same people the Trolls like to piss off the most)

      From a more philosophical point of view, you can divide online gamers into two groups. The first, the 'non-cheaters', are the type of person that diligently hammers the round peg into the round hole, and the square peg into the square hole, and becomes incredibly angry when they see someone else do things differently. The second, the 'cheaters', are the type of person who finds a way to make the pegs fit into the 'wrong' holes, and gets a kick out of watching the other people get angry with them.

    27. Re:Not a big deal by mark-t · · Score: 1

      If the mechanics of the game are so tiresome as to make cheating look like a good idea, the game probably isn't good enough to warrant playing in the first place, let alone cheating at it.

      "Why do you care if other people cheat, since it's just a game?"

      I would speculate that the answer to that is because as a game, it is supposed to be fun... and cheaters make a game less fun for the people that don't cheat. If that weren't true, after all, one would not feel pressure to cheat in the first place simply because other people are.... an example that you yourself cited as one of the incentives behind cheating.

      --
      File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    28. Re:Not a big deal by ffkom · · Score: 1

      Entertaining yourself watching others frustration of losing doesn't even require a computer.

      I vividly remember a guy decades ago in school who was so reproduceably upset by losing (soccer games, card games and alike) that others started to intentionally play bad whenever they happened to be teamed up with him, just because it was so much fun watching him getting upset.

      The whole time, he never seemed to realize that it was no coincidence people were losing when playing on his team.

    29. Re:Not a big deal by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      poor kid

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    30. Re:Not a big deal by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      World Of Tanks. Getting matched in random battles is more miss than hit that you'll get a decent team. Most of the time you're getting matched with assholes who think random firing is fun and they seem to completely get off on team kills. Really, the only way you're going to guarantee that at least a fifth of your team aren't going to do that to you is find a few players you trust, add them to your contact list and platoon up when you're online at the same time. Or, go into Team Battles (it's a point-based build system which uses tank tiers to figure how many tanks you have in your squad) and pretty much guarantee you're not going to get Ninja'd every match because in the rare event that a NBS does make it in the squad, he'll be rooted out and shitlisted ricky tick.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    31. Re:Not a big deal by KGIII · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I am not a gamer but I've read about EVE. Even if they made a client for my system, I'd not play. Nope... Someone's gonna shoot someone over the antics in that game - by the players themselves. I've read stories about some of the greatest takeovers, robberies, and con jobs - and they all took place in EVE. Iceland has like a half dozen firearms, in the whole country. A bunch of crazy Americans are going to hop on a boat, row to Iceland, and just start shooting the developers.

      Seriously, EVE is gonna result in someone waking up dead one day. I live vicariously through the stories. No, I seriously do look for the stories and read them. I like the long, exposé, types of stories that go into full details and actually describe what happened. It's like watching a wreck happen in slow motion where the people are cheering and wearing party hats. They know, they have to know, that they're going to die. I'm just waiting for someone to die in real life.

      Hell, for all I know, it's already happened and I've just not read about that story yet. Someone, somewhere, is plotting how best to stitch another EVE player's skin into a body suit so that they can wear it while they kill the rest of the team. I'm not saying that I'd agree with such a person, or their behavior, but I'd have a little sympathy. I've read what those fuckers do to each other - intentionally.

      It's an evil, vile, game that brings out the worst in people. That has some certain benefits to it and, from a pure outside view, it appears the owners actually appreciate, if not condone, that sort of practice. I know that I'd do so if it were my game to control. Absolutely... I'm just not sure how they'll deal with it when it spills over into the real world and people actually kill each other over their in-game antics.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    32. Re:Not a big deal by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I watched a movie, it was horrible, about a kid who played video games. His dad, a wealthy person, got him a special video game and it turns out that it was a real recruitment tool. They recruited him to become some sort of warrior, something to do with time was involved, and he had a friend who was also recruited - but his friend was evil.

      It was a fantastic plot line.

      That's the only redeeming quality that it had. It had bad acting, bad effects, bad settings, bad production, bad directing, bad script writing, and bad everything else. The plot? It was awesome! The movie could have been ten times as good and still been bad. Yup, nary a full order of magnitude's worth of improvements could have made that movie good. It was just that bad.

      At any rate, it was based on a video game and you could tell they were trying to stretch it into a series. I have no idea what the video game was and I hope nobody paid to see this movie. I sort of paid, it was on Hulu+ and I was stoned. This was not actually all that long ago - late last year.

      The Army recruitment tool made me think of it. I've no idea if the game is any good (I'm not actually a gamer) or anything like that. And, as an aside, I'd expect that anyone that paid to see that movie felt cheated - they were. If I were a gamer and a fan of that game, I'd feel cheated by such a bad movie. It's on the list of the crappiest movies that I've ever seen. It's near the bottom of that list (top?), meaning that it is horrible. I don't know if you're into bad movies or games but this movie is so bad that it needs to be used as an example in movie making school. Really, it is that bad.

      I seem to recall some comments that indicated the game was good. I actually watched the entire movie but I've long since forgotten the name - I'm not what you'd call a movie buff. Meh, this is Slashdot. Someone knows the game, the movie, and one odd guy actually liked the movie. Time Warrior, maybe?

      Oh. Yup. That's the name... Time Warrior:
      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt20...

      Somehow, it's in the positive star ranking but only at a 3.1. I even like some bad movies. This one? I think this is probably one of the worst ones that I've ever seen - if not the worst. And I've seen Gymkata! Hell, to put this in perspective, I kind of LIKE Gymkata. The Adventures of Remo Williams is almost my favorite movie (assuming documentaries aren't allowed on that list). No, Time Warrior was awful but could have been so great.

      At any rate, the whole point of this was - as I mentioned - that it was about using a video game to recruit soldiers. It really had such great potential to be a good movie. The plot was one of the best I've seen - in a while. It was just so poorly executed that I have nothing good to say about it - except that it had great potential. It could easily have been a good movie. It should have been an excellent movie. It might have even been pretty easy to make it a phenomenal movie. Nope... It's so bad that not even *I* like it.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    33. Re:Not a big deal by KGIII · · Score: 1

      WTF is wrong with you kids today? Nah, there's a fine defense for trolling and a few trolls that are quite notable for their work. Why? Because of the amount of energy and effort they put into it. They need to teach this stuff in history class, lest the classics be forgotten - from grits to Yoda.

      No, some trolls are funny as all hell. Some trolling is fantastic. There's a great amount of effort (and creativity) that goes into good trolling. Then, you've got long-con trolls that will set up the folks like bowling pins and then knock them down with one fell swoop! There's the one who slips in a casual mention and few notice - those are some of my personal favorites.

      No, there's good trolling. Well, maybe not "good" by some metrics but good in that it is impressive and a good demonstration of what a quality troll can do to people. They are the experts in their field and some of them even make the world a better place. (I'm reminded of Banksy before he got a name for himself.) There are IRL trolls and internet trolls. There are good, bad, creative, and lazy trolls.

      They come in all shapes and sizes and some of them accomplish meaningful things - even if it's just to make you laugh, or to think differently, or to (gasp) change your outlook on something. This doesn't mean that they're all good. It doesn't mean that they're all worth the effort. It does, sort of, mean that the name has been watered down to include just plain assholes.

      An asshole isn't a troll. A troll can be an asshole. That's an important concept - as is the concept of LULZ (we can has them). They've created, destroyed, enlightened, and caused ignorance. A tool is a tool is a tool. What you use it for, what you create, what you do with that tool? Those are the important things. Those are the things that matter. No... Trolling is a art. Like any other art, it can be good or bad. It can be one to make you think or point out the obvious. Personally, as I said, I prefer the more subtle trolls...

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    34. Re:Not a big deal by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      It's not about whether people are bastards or not, obvious pricks exist everywhere. But a game is supposed to be entertainment,

      You might enjoy playing by the rules, whereas someone else might get their entertainment by spoiling your fun. The game itself is still entertainment in both cases.

    35. Re:Not a big deal by LoverOfJoy · · Score: 1

      Or maybe it's like going to a movie theater and picking a movie you don't care about and then sitting through the movie while playing on your cell phone and periodically talking or laughing at obnoxious moments.

    36. Re:Not a big deal by cwsumner · · Score: 1

      Cheats in single player games are so you don't have to play the same stupid scene over and over 47 times just to get past. They are like a bug fix or workaround. You can't actually cheat in a single player game because there is no one else there and no one cares.

      But there are no cheaters or greifers or kids there, either. Which is why I much prefer single player... 8-)

    37. Re:Not a big deal by metaforest · · Score: 2

      Sorry, KGIII, reading a few articles about the crazy shit that goes on in EVE doesn't give you any notion of what the game is really like.
      While there are some notorious Alliances and Corps that are out and out trolls the vast majority of players just like to play rough. The way EVE is structured all of that rough and tumble play, the meta-gaming, the scheming and theory crafting make the game a hell of a lot more fun than just about any other game I have played.

      I don't know of any other game where literally thousands of players are interacting - live in realtime - on the same server cluster, engaged in coordinated operations that can and do have profound influences on the entire game, and how it is played. CCP (EVE's creators) have had to learn along the way too that emergent game play does not come from restricting play styles and beefing up the TOS.

      The scamming, backstabbing and other interesting stories that come out of EVE are mostly operating within the games rules:
      There are really only a few things that gets CCP swinging the ban-hammer: Real Money trading, hacking the client - server protocols, exploiting bugs in the game logic, and illegal harassment of players (DOXING etc).

      EVE's core players take extra joy in making cheaters miserable once their MO is discovered and communicated through the galactic grapevine.

      o7

    38. Re:Not a big deal by KGIII · · Score: 1

      You didn't actually say anything that I didn't say. I'm not entirely sure what prompted your reply, perhaps you read something that wasn't there?

      At this point, it's probably best to presume that you're hard at work on designing your skin suit. I'd also like to point out that I live nowhere near Iceland and don't play your game - you probably don't need to add me to your "going to get even" list. In the meantime, enjoy your game.

      I'm still trying to figure out why you're telling me things I not only already know but either pointed out directly or alluded to in my post. No, no need to elaborate, I don't want to be party to your skin suit - even at the design level.

      For the rest of the readers: Note their reply... Yup... They're an interesting group of people and that's a fine example of 'em. If you see one in real life, keep the skin suit thought in mind. They're probably even working on stitching material strengths and weaknesses.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    39. Re:Not a big deal by metaforest · · Score: 1

      the vast majority of EVE players do not live in iceland and have never been there.

  7. A new low for Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Linking to a subreddit, this is a new low.

    1. Re:A new low for Slashdot by Infiniti2000 · · Score: 2

      But, it's only 3 days late so that makes it okay!

    2. Re:A new low for Slashdot by BronsCon · · Score: 2, Funny

      Why hasn't Netcraft confirmed the death yet?

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    3. Re:A new low for Slashdot by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      How many "new lows" can /. suffer?

      I mean... by now we have passed all the way through the Earth and are, perhaps, halfway out of the Solar System...

      Every single article has at least 1 "new low" comment... clearly they can't all be true.

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
  8. Lesson learned by blogagog · · Score: 2

    "Video Game Cheaters Outed By Logic Bombs"

    That's why I play it smart and never use logic!

    1. Re:Lesson learned by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      Make mistakes and confuse your opponent.

    2. Re:Lesson learned by Jason+Levine · · Score: 3, Interesting

      A friend of mine and I used to play a football video game back in the NES days. He would employ football strategy to plan his maneuvers, but i knew nothing of the game so I's just choose random plays and button mash. More often than not, I'd beat him because he couldn't figure out what my strategy was to make a counter to it. He'd plan a defense based on the most logical (to someone who knows football) offense, but I'd do something completely different and would win.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    3. Re:Lesson learned by kelemvor4 · · Score: 2

      "Video Game Cheaters Outed By Logic Bombs" That's why I play it smart and never use logic!

      It's an error by the editors. The title should be "Video Game Cheaters outed by other Video Game Cheaters."

    4. Re:Lesson learned by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

      Took me a while to figure out that in real football the optimal strategy wasn't having the quarterback run back about 40 yards then throw a hail mary(the actual best tactic in the original Tecmo bowl game)

      --
      Monstar L
    5. Re:Lesson learned by Yunzil · · Score: 1

      From the Meaning of Liff:

      Aboyne (vb.): To beat an expert at a game of skill by playing so appallingly that none of his clever tactics or strategies are of any use to him.

  9. Offline, single player ... by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is why I continue to prefer console games with no internet access ... I don't have to worry about the other guy cheating, but if the company made ways for me to "cheat" it doesn't hurt anybody.

    If I want infinite ammo and can't die, who cares if I'm sitting in my basement and nobody else is affected?

    Cheat codes used to be part of the fun of one-player games.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Offline, single player ... by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      I loved playing single-player games with cheat codes. I'd enter "It is a good day to die" into Warcraft (original - before all this "World Of" stuff) and would send a now immortal peon to take out the enemy's entire army. I'd also give myself unlimited money in SimCity and just buy out all the competing civilizations except for one city that I'd keep around to keep the game from ending. (I called that my "Microsoft Strategy.")

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    2. Re:Offline, single player ... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      In this case, the cheats allow things like auto-aim that instantly headshots the target, and wall hacks that allow you to see the other players through walls. There are also speed hacks, and I am sure many more hacks I haven't even heard about.

      There is no enjoyment in it except ruining the game for everyone else.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    3. Re:Offline, single player ... by blazer1024 · · Score: 1

      I'd also give myself unlimited money in SimCity and just buy out all the competing civilizations except for one city that I'd keep around to keep the game from ending. (I called that my "Microsoft Strategy.")

      I feel like... I feel like you've combined SimCity with Civilization to create some weird mega-game!

    4. Re:Offline, single player ... by Mryll · · Score: 1

      It's sad that there's not really a good way to play competitive games with random people on the Internet as a whole. I used to enjoy things in the early days of Quake and TF as players were so happy just to be able to meet up online and play these games with more people. It didn't take long for things to deteriorate as the barriers of entry became lower and audience broadened. Last year I tried to play some online RDR with my nephew and after initial good experiences the servers were hacked to hell by disruptive people and we gave up.

      Invite only I guess...

    5. Re:Offline, single player ... by Zedrick · · Score: 1

      > Cheat codes used to be part of the fun of one-player games.

      For me, finding cheat "codes" was (and is) part of the fun. Figuring out that Pirates! on the Amiga stored money x10 in the save file (for example, 20 gold = $C8) was the first kind of hacking (in a very broad sense) I did, or can remember.

      And I still enjoy figuring out stuff like that in modern single player games, even if it makes actually playing the game less rewarding.

    6. Re:Offline, single player ... by malditaenvidia · · Score: 1

      Too bad they now sell these cheat codes and extras as DLC. The videogame business needs another crash.

    7. Re:Offline, single player ... by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Shoot... Meant to type Civilization. I used to do the same with SimCity, though. I'd build a city, purposely unleash a few dozen disasters on it, and then use cheat codes to give myself unlimited resources so I could rebuild.... only to wreck havoc on the city again.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    8. Re:Offline, single player ... by Sowelu · · Score: 1

      E D24 7F FF.

  10. HalfLife 2 Deathmatch... by yodleboy · · Score: 1

    I'm beginning to suspect some new hacks have come out for HL2:Deathmatch recently. I've played regularly for years and I've seen plenty of obvious hacks, but I've also seen plenty of players that are just way better than me. Took a couple month break to play Fallout 4, and now that I'm back I'm seeing a lot of people that were middle of the pack two months ago doing all kinds of crazy crap and suddenly kicking ass. The community is pretty small these days, so it's not like you don't run into the same people over and over and get to know their style. It doesn't seem like VAC really does anything these days.

    1. Re:HalfLife 2 Deathmatch... by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      have you taken a break that long before?

      a month or two will seriously fuck up your aim and your timing, and that combined with other players improving quickly can be pretty thumping. I think two months off from one of my old favorites, and it took me a couple weeks to almost get back to where i was.

      you're talking about half-life two, so i'm assuming you've got something like 1000 hours into it at least. you're still playing it, so i'm going to assume you play it at a decently high level. When you play at a certain level, it's more about the ingrained shit. Keeping your reactions tight and on point means more than it did at 100 hours. Everybody know the maps, everbody knows the jumps, landing rockets ain't a thang at that level... we're talking about air rockets and twitch rail-shots now baby. and taking a couple months off, rewiring your fingers for an RPG... that's going to fuck your twitching.

  11. That's where I stopped... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1, Insightful

    A Reddit user...

    Explains a lot...

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
  12. Keep going by wkwilley2 · · Score: 1

    Cheaters have never discouraged me from playing games, although, I'm not for the FPS genre either.

    I've had to deal with gold farmers and the like in MMO's and as long as the devs keep tabs on things, they normally don't get out of hand.

    With games like CS, development is done. They don't care about patching the game. Does it work? Yeah, so let people buy it up for 15 USD a pop.

    --
    Have you ever fallen asleep at the keybhanusdiog?
    1. Re:Keep going by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      FPS cheating vs gold farming aren't even remotely comparable. Apples to matrix multiplication. In your gaming environment, cheating just isn't as impactful to the game experience as it is in a FPS environment.

    2. Re:Keep going by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      In MMOs I can at least understand the motivation behind bots. Circumventing a game mechanic you don't enjoy but have to do to get to the enjoyable part. Very understandable.

      But why the fuck cheat in a FPS game?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Keep going by wkwilley2 · · Score: 1

      So you can have a K/D like no ones business.

      --
      Have you ever fallen asleep at the keybhanusdiog?
    4. Re:Keep going by retchdog · · Score: 1

      When I was very young I discovered some way to manipulate the computer opponent in Mail Order Monsters into making stupid decisions, so I trivially chalked up a 252-0 win-loss record, which was saved to floppy. At the time, my legitimate enjoyment of the game's aesthetics was confused with the thrill of making that number higher, and I was frustrated by the higher difficulty options in the game, so I kept beating the crap out of a training dummy. I kept doing this until my brother loaded up my game one afternoon and sabotaged my record by losing intentionally.

      Now at 252-1, I was furious for a while and then realized how silly the record was in the first place. I don't think this realization is inevitable for everyone, nor that you only need to realize it once.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
  13. I can give input there! by Sowelu · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I used to make bots for my own use in Puzzle Pirates. Less directly competitive, but there were global ratings and you helped your crew by performing highly (without directly griefing other players). I found that writing them was a lot of fun--it was a challenge to see how optimized I could make them, and how realistically I could make them act as humans. Big 'oops' moment when my bot went to the top of the world rankings after it'd only been running for a couple days, and I think I got banned because my bot optimized for weird combos that humans are unable to predict very well; it would stand out blatantly if anyone ran those particular statistics, but at least it had delays and mistakes and weird mouse movements like a person. In any case I found the 'botting puzzle' to be much deeper than the 'bilging puzzle'. It would still be fun if it was single-player.

    But, that's just me as a writer. I could see distributing it to friends as a kind of intellectual challenge in managing people, and getting ahead in the game to see more high-level content. In a one-shot game like CS:GI though, downloading someone else's bot is just pointless. There's no long term progression to gain from, and you don't get the challenge of writing the bot yourself. All you get is the meaningless short-lived internet points from seeing yourself on top of a scoreboard, and you won't even win fights in a way that earns respect from your enemies.

    Now see, what I'd REALLY love is a game (fps, mmo, puzzle, mud, etc) that is populated by user-submitted bots only. Upload and then forbid human communication with bots while they're running. Your bot needs to adapt to the way other bots behave that season, maybe your bot even needs to be designed in a way that it can try to form alliances with other bots for common interest--I guess some kind of open spec for communication protocol within the game would be good there. Who's trustworthy, who's not, can you share information, can you trust information, and of course just basic ability at playing the game. THAT would be a serious intellectual challenge. Things like Corewars just aren't as in depth as I want.

    1. Re:I can give input there! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You may be interested in screeps.
      MMO world run entirely by bots.
      Seems interesting, haven't tried it yet.

      No direct control as far as I can tell.

      https://screeps.com/

    2. Re:I can give input there! by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 2

      Yeah, and make the requirements on the bot :

      1) Your bot must have a unique hash

      2) You must sign the hash with a key associated with only your account

      I used to like Corewar but the problem is the VM it runs in is too limited in scope for it to be interesting after a while.

    3. Re:I can give input there! by Sowelu · · Score: 1

      This looks absolutely amazing. Thank you so much for the link, I think I'm going to kill a LOT of hours here.

    4. Re:I can give input there! by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I used to like Corewar but the problem is the VM it runs in is too limited in scope for it to be interesting after a while.

      Yeah, I've spent time trying to figure out how to make the VM better. I think what you really need is a way to limit rocks, so program size can increase. Right now, any program too large loses quickly to a small, dumb script. And "too large" means larger than 15 lines......

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:I can give input there! by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      downloading someone else's bot is just pointless. There's no long term progression to gain from, and you don't get the challenge of writing the bot yourself.

      buying food grown by someone else is just pointless. you don't get the challenge of growing the food yourself.

      see how well that logic works?

    6. Re:I can give input there! by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      I eat food. I play games. I write a bot. Using someone else's bot... I don't see the connection.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    7. Re:I can give input there! by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      I actually wrote a series of scripts back in the day that allowed multiple characters to work together to gain XP and gold as fast as the system would allow it. It was an interesting exercise since the participants in the kill room had to communicate via the game to get healed or acknowledge they were ready for the next target. Each character type had a custom set of activities, and statuses. It was an interesting thing to get working well.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    8. Re:I can give input there! by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I've spent time trying to figure out how to make the VM better. I think what you really need is a way to limit rocks, so program size can increase.

      Could you elaborate? What do you mean, exactly?

      --
      File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    9. Re:I can give input there! by BadBlood · · Score: 1

      Back in 2002 maybe, IBM had a java tank competition using nothing but bots: http://www.ibm.com/developerwo...

      --


      Praying for the end of your wide-awake nightmare.
    10. Re:I can give input there! by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      i know, analogies can be a tough nut for some people but it's a really useful tool to help understand the world at times.

      see how well that logic works?

      no, we don't. you said this,

      downloading someone else's bot is just pointless

      why? we all use tools produced by other people (even you). you may get additional satisfaction from building your own tools, but the benefit of using a tool isn't negated because it was built by someone else. the usefulness of a tool is orthogonal to how it was acquired.

    11. Re:I can give input there! by phantomfive · · Score: 1
      Here is an example of a 'rock' program, it basically overwrites every fifth memory address. The strategy is to quickly pass through memory, hopefully destroying the opponent by blind luck:

      dat -1 ;data, also stores the bombing address
      add #5 -1 ;increases the bombing address by five
      mov #0 @ -2 ;this is the bomb, it copies the dat line to the address
      jmp -2 ;jumpbacktwoinstructions

      If you write a program that is only one line long, then this program only has a 1/5 chance of winning.
      So the longer the program, the weaker it is against this one. Many complex, interesting programs have been written, only to fall to this bomber.

      My theory is, if you could find a way to modify the system that would weaken this strategy, then it would allow longer, and more interesting programs.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    12. Re:I can give input there! by phorm · · Score: 1

      I've often thought it would be fun to have a game that to some extent allowed legitimate use of scripting/botting, but tied into in-game elements.
      In a space-sim, you might allow cool things like "hacking" enemy vessels to bring down their shields/engines/etc. This could be done by combining in-game items with code, human interaction, and timers. For example, the older "Mass Effect" games had little puzzles to solve in order to "hack" into locked doors, etc.
      This could be done in a more complex way by having:
      * A time-limit in which to execute a hack before intrusion was detected/blocked
      * Security-style items which increase the complexity of a system, making it take longer to hack (or having their own time-limits)
      * Items which were counter-measures to the security-style items, or to increase the allowed time. Some of these might be burnable/consumable.
      * The ability to either go at the security/puzzles manually, or to use scripts to help solve the puzzles in combination with the above items
      * Additional scripts to perform certain actions against the penetrated enemy systems, or lie dormant until needed.

      It's not exactly traditional bots, but if the "systems" behaved in a somewhat automated manner where it's more a game of cops-and-robbers between defensive systems and attackers, it could be quite complex and fun. The hard part would be in striking a balance between the "twitch" players and those more cerebral, but perhaps that would bring in an in-game concept of white-hat VS black-hat where the former could design and sell defensive scripts.

      You could even have stuff like the ability to drop upgrade "loot" which in reality is actual a form of trojan etc

    13. Re:I can give input there! by ffkom · · Score: 1

      Not an MMO, but MindRover was a game completely around building bots and sending them to fight each other. There also were contests were you sent in your bot for competing against others on a manufacturer hosted machine.

      And the grand father of such games, of course, was "Core Wars", without any fancy 3d-graphics.

    14. Re:I can give input there! by Sowelu · · Score: 1

      I tweaked a ROM2.4 mud very mildly so that it exposed monster and item ID numbers (so bots wouldn't have to actually understand English), and had my bots go in without any knowledge of areas/monsters/items. The goal is that they would explore the world themselves, and learn their own fastest way to XP and gold at whatever level they were at, finding the correct weapons and the correct monsters and the right times to use them, cataloguing it for their second run through. Forming parties when appropriate would be the obvious expansion to that--especially if they were less efficient for grinding, but could be a way to get gear of higher level than you are intended to have at the time.

      Yeah I miss that project.

    15. Re:I can give input there! by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Ah... a 'dwarf' variant. There are defenses against that strategy though. For example, a multiprocess warrior would demolish this, even though it may be several times as long.

      Also, this crude approach would eventually clobber itself if the number of addresses in the VM was not evenly divisible by 5.

      --
      File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    16. Re:I can give input there! by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Ah... a 'dwarf' variant. There are defenses against that strategy though.

      In fact, it is the original published by A.K. Dewdney himself.

      For example, a multiprocess warrior would demolish this, even though it may be several times as long.

      Yes, the multiprocessor warrior is the original counter to this, but it can't be too long otherwise it will not demolish this. The dwarf is the thing in the ecosystem that prevents programs from getting too long.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    17. Re:I can give input there! by Sowelu · · Score: 1

      MindRover: The Europa Project was actually pretty good! And I'm working on a...well, not clone of it right now, but directly inspired. You program it with transistors and stuff. It's not computer-newbie friendly like MindRover was, but it's kinda fun to implement super-tiny computers out of bare metal.

    18. Re:I can give input there! by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Heh... I still have a KoL character. I took 'em out for a spin the other day. Well, like two months ago. After you've ascended enough times and gotten more meat than you can spend, it lost it's luster for me. Oh, my character's worth millions of meat. I could probably sell it on eBay or something but that's prohibited. It'd be nice to. I don't need the money or anything. It'd just be good to see the character go to someone who'd actually appreciate it the most. NS-12 was when I stopped, I think. I've logged in a few times and done some grinding, for my own amusement, but it's just not that interesting after a while. I guess there are a bunch of new quests. They didn't draw me back in. I should check again, maybe it's interesting again. Meh...

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    19. Re:I can give input there! by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Well, I can't say I knew Dewdney's code by heart.... I only recognized the general pattern, which is why I called it a variant.

      The articles he wrote in Scientific American were always my favourites.

      --
      File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    20. Re:I can give input there! by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Yeap. But if you can think of other ways to make the game bigger, I would be interested, too.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    21. Re:I can give input there! by nametaken · · Score: 1

      In any case I found the 'botting puzzle' to be much deeper than the 'bilging puzzle'. It would still be fun if it was single-player.

      That's funny. I wrote one of my earliest botting apps to handle the island resource mining in YPP at a very remote island. It had some features built in to avoid detection, but the ocean masters (right?) never did give me a hard time.
         

    22. Re:I can give input there! by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Gosh, it's been years.... There were two instructions that I recall which deviated from the standard that I had, however.... PCT (protect), which would protect a memory location from being written into, but only until that location written to by any process, after it has been written once, it is unprotected until protected again. So while a long program had PCT'd itself could survive a single pass of a dwarf or bomber program, it would necessarily periodically need to execute the instruction on its entire body again regularly to avoid destruction. A program could determine if a memory location had been PCT'd by trying to read it after writing it, and if the value is different than what was written, the location had obviously been PCT'd. The other instruction was JNO (jump when not owned), which would branch to the address given in the second operand if the address of the first operand was last written to by someone else or contains code, data, or instructions owned by someone else.

      --
      File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
  14. Love It, Love It, Love It! by Toad-san · · Score: 1

    I don't play Counterstrike, but I do abhor cheaters of any type! Good for the company to make these honey pits, play a badger game, whatever it takes to crush the godz-cursed scum of the earth.

    1. Re:Love It, Love It, Love It! by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

      I don't play Counterstrike, but I do abhor cheaters of any type! Good for the company to make these honey pits, play a badger game, whatever it takes to crush the godz-cursed scum of the earth.

      The company didn't do this, another cheater did. They turned on each other, just like the bible said they would.

  15. Logic bombs? by Dan+East · · Score: 5, Informative

    I don't think "logic bomb" means what the submitter thinks it means (the stories don't use that term). These were trojans.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:Logic bombs? by hack++slash · · Score: 1

      Clickbaiters suck balls. It appears they used "Logic Bombs" because that phrase conjures up a more interesting picture of what happened than "Greedy Idiot Gamers Self Banned By Trojans."

      --
      To do something right, you often have to roll up your sleeves and get busy.
    2. Re:Logic bombs? by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

      I don't think "logic bomb" means what the submitter thinks it means (the stories don't use that term). These were trojans.

      I think it means exactly what the submitter thinks it means, and is right.

      The first two "multihacks" contained a time-triggered change that caused the user to get banned. It's unclear whether the third only activated when joining an online game or instead unconditionally did something that was only checked by Valve when going online.

      Either you don't realize that most of those fall within the definition or you're quibbling about a server-implemented ban versus client-side data deletion. I certainly wouldn't agree with the latter point. I'm also not going to criticize the summary because one of the three might not have been triggered by a condition.

      It was a trojan in the sense that any disguised payload, whether logic bomb, RAT, etc., is a trojan. The terms "logic bomb" and "trojan" are not mutually exclusive. Especially where the downloaders intentionally sought out the program and most of its functionality.

    3. Re:Logic bombs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      logic bomb used to mean software that would consume all the resources on a system and be difficult for the administrator to terminate.

      Now it just means a trojan that the sap intentionally downloads. Great. There isn't already a word for a trojan that a sap intentionally downloads, is there?

      Now what do we call software that consumes all the resources on a system and is difficult to terminate?

    4. Re:Logic bombs? by ShaunC · · Score: 1

      Now what do we call software that consumes all the resources on a system and is difficult to terminate?

      I've always called that scenario a "fork bomb."

      --
      Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
  16. Re:News for gamers with no life? by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

    Why do I care about this juvenile, jaded game and all the prepubescent cheaters it attracts? Why can't Slashdot ever report on that stuff that matters? LIke Perl 6 or the latest bugs and security holes, thanks to our beloved C / C++ languages we use to write our open sores software. Makes me really feel this world is going to shit. In the non-technical realms we have a severe infestation of mindless logic-hating libtard SJWs. In the "tech" side we have a bunch of moron wannabe programmers using baby new wave "programming" languages. They're too fuckin afraid to manage their own memory and heaven forbid they actually even understand the bit patterns of various strict types. I'm sorry to rant, but I just really feel I'm the end of my rope. I think this world is doomed so I might as well just use the last of it hang myself before I have to sit around in my basement and witness things get even worse. Over and out, Slashdot!!

    Slashdot was purchased by Dice. Maybe you missed it? It's not really stuff that matters now. It's stuff that might get hits and make dice more money.

  17. Why cheat? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Please, could someone PLEASE explain the logic behind cheating in multiplayer games?

    Either you win. Then you won because you used a cheat. It was not your skill, you're not better than the person you triumped over, a dog with his paws tied to the keyboard could have done it.

    Or you lose. Then you're even too stupid to win when you cheat. It's like having LOSER stamped on your forehead.

    So why would anyone want to cheat?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Why cheat? by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Have you met any humans?

      Because, really ... if it's got rules, someone is cheating.
      Winning by cheating doesn't seem to bother people, and it never has.

      Are you seriously surprised by this? Has anything about human nature left you thinking you should expect otherwise?

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:Why cheat? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I am aware that humans tend to be irrational. That makes them funny to watch. But in this case it leaves me mystified.

      There is nothing to gain. If there was some additional benefit like, say, a trophy, money, any kind of motivation outside the feeling of winning, I could see this motivation as the reason behind cheating, wanting to gain this additional prize. But if there's nothing to be gained outside of the knowledge that, yes, you won, where is the benefit?

      I honestly don't understand this. This makes simply no sense whatsoever. Not even by human standards.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Why cheat? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      More mystified by the human species. So irrational it should have gone extinct ages ago.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Why cheat? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Would you not enjoy having super powers? Cheats are super powers: you get to walk tall among the mere mortals. Most people don't have the slightest desire to be challenged, they just want to win.

    5. Re:Why cheat? by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      I am aware that humans tend to be irrational

      Irrational? You don't think there are perfectly rational reasons for cheating?

      But if there's nothing to be gained outside of the knowledge that, yes, you won, where is the benefit?

      Because, smug is a surprising motivator ... either beating you without you knowing how, or just because the act was fun. Because it was there. Because they could.

      I honestly don't understand this. This makes simply no sense whatsoever. Not even by human standards.

      Wait, what? Since when are human standards supposed to make sense? Did I miss a memo?

      So, my very cynical view of humans boils down to: humans are bastards, capable of great depths of terrible things -- and they'll do those terrible things for both fun and profit, and that in a large enough sample of humans, you should expect sociopathic behavior, because it will happen.

      At the individual scale, humans can have a lot of redeeming qualities. But at the macro level, we're anything but.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    6. Re:Why cheat? by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      Yeah see, here is what I think happens.

      The cheater wins because of the cheats. but it is not really about winning, it is about enjoying other people's pain. Even if it is about winning, the mental gymnastics required to make the cheater believe that it was justified are not all that complex. People do that kind of thing all the time. Take any given person's political beliefs. A lot of people will believe what they believe and have no trouble at all performing the necessary justifications in their head to bolster their stance.

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    7. Re:Why cheat? by iamacat · · Score: 1

      Please, could someone PLEASE explain the logic behind participating in multiplayer games?

      The rules of these games are made up anyway and winning is not an indication of any admirable real world trait or skill. So some people get a kick out of making yet another game out of beating the game without getting caught, seeing people hide behind walls they can see through and then fragging them and taunting them in chat.

    8. Re:Why cheat? by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      I can only assume these cheating dimwits actually think they are good at the game and mostly won due to their skill. And of course they assume they are winning, but of course it's not really winning if you cheated - I don't think they understand this.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    9. Re:Why cheat? by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      Please, could someone PLEASE explain the logic behind cheating in multiplayer games?

      Because there are more possible outcomes than win or lose. Spoiling being quite a popular one.

    10. Re:Why cheat? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If there was some additional benefit like, say, a trophy, money, any kind of motivation outside the feeling of winning, I could see this motivation as the reason behind cheating, wanting to gain this additional prize.

      A lot of games now give virtual rewards to winners, in-game items and the like that trick the brain into thinking it's got something... so this problem can be expected to be worse than ever before in video gaming.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:Why cheat? by lilrobbie · · Score: 1

      The rules of these games are made up anyway and winning is not an indication of any admirable real world trait or skill.

      That exact same concept applies to card games, board games, betting, or any other type of interaction. Heck, most societies promote skills and traits that are not real-world admirable ("Oh look, that person can apply make-up so perfectly it appears they have no make-up on at all!").

      My own answer to that question is likely to be less than satisfactory for you, sorry, but it essentially boils down to: Winning in a fair-ish game against stiff competition is satisfying, and makes me feel like I achieved something.

      And sometimes they *are* real-world admirable traits... in competitive play, many games require high levels of dexterity, well researched strategies (including determining your enemy's tactics and countering them) and rapidly responding to tactical changes. Sometimes they also require deep levels of team-work, good coordination (and *fast* coordination as well). Games can also teach you how to react to stress, and time pressures (depending on the type of game you play, and how seriously you play it).

      For example, League of Legends taught me about managing previously-uncohesive teams and forming team bonds quickly, as well as learning to recognise the difference between disenfranchised vs. deliberately anti-social players. This has contributed directly towards my ability to cope and manage real work situations where I need to help repair or manage ad-hoc interest groups amongst developers.

      I guess all I'm saying is that you get out of gaming what you put into it. Gaming isn't for everyone, and surely some people waste their lives with games (and some games definitely do nothing other than waste your time)... but there is a lot you can gain from them as a whole.

  18. Re:News for gamers with no life? by Drewdad · · Score: 4, Informative

    Dice sold Slashdot. Maybe you missed it?

    http://meta.slashdot.org/story...

  19. CS:GO items sell for real money by waspleg · · Score: 1

    There's some motivation for cheating right there. I don't play because CS:GO is fucking terrible compared to the original CS (1.3 was the best version, then they removed jumping but even 1.6 is better than GO) so I'm not sure how that translates but if it were just passively having the client running like TF2 you'd still have cheaters because dying means sitting in the time-out chair.

    1. Re:CS:GO items sell for real money by Sowelu · · Score: 1

      props for 1.3, back when the AWP was the AWP instead of the AWM or whatever.

    2. Re:CS:GO items sell for real money by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Yup! Those are letters and numbers!

      No, I'm not exactly sure why I am in a gaming thread but I usually visit all of 'em - if not just to see what folks are yelling about today. However, between your post and their post, I got "CS." Everybody knows what Creative Suite is! LOL, I'm such a gamer!

      (No, I'm really guessing it's Counter Strike. The rest is just gibberish to me.)

      Actually, if you throw in the way it's threaded here - phantomfive's post is just above these two posts.

      Here is an example of a 'rock' program, it basically overwrites every fifth memory address. The strategy is to quickly pass through memory, hopefully destroying the opponent by blind luck:

      dat -1 ;data, also stores the bombing address
      add #5 -1 ;increases the bombing address by five
      mov #0 @ -2 ;this is the bomb, it copies the dat line to the address
      jmp -2 ;jumpbacktwoinstructions

      If you write a program that is only one line long, then this program only has a 1/5 chance of winning.
      So the longer the program, the weaker it is against this one. Many complex, interesting programs have been written, only to fall to this bomber.

      My theory is, if you could find a way to modify the system that would weaken this strategy, then it would allow longer, and more interesting programs.

      There's some motivation for cheating right there. I don't play because CS:GO is fucking terrible compared to the original CS (1.3 was the best version, then they removed jumping but even 1.6 is better than GO) so I'm not sure how that translates but if it were just passively having the client running like TF2 you'd still have cheaters because dying means sitting in the time-out chair.

      props for 1.3, back when the AWP was the AWP instead of the AWM or whatever.

      I think I can be excused for not having a damned clue what's going on. ;-) Oh, I think TF2 is Team Fortress 2. I was a bit of a gamer, I loved the Fallout 2 game. I then bought Fallout Tactics. I haven't played a game since except for trying to pick up Fallout 2 again a few times. Alas, Tactics killed not just the series but the entire gaming right out of me. I didn't have a whole lot of money then. Worse, I paid full retail for Fallout Tactics.

      I'd even played a "Tactics" game before. I'd played Fallout before. I loved Fallout and Fallout 2. I had a great time with both games. I could even tolerate and enjoy some of the Tactics games. Somehow, they combined them in such a powerful manner that I haven't really gamed since - and not in a good way. It's sure as hell not like I'm thinking, "They'll never beat that, I'll quit while I'm ahead."

      I don't think I've even paid for a game since then. Well, not for me. I've bought some for my kids and for other people. I've even donated to an open source game or two that I didn't/don't actually play. I've donated and played at an online game but that involved a whole lot of alcohol. No, Tactics pretty much killed games for me. I don't even play my beloved golf games any more. I've never even seen Fallout 3 played. I've heard that 4 is out there. I hear they aren't what I'd like anyhow as they're nothing like the original.

      Ah well... I'm pretty sure the pre-release reviews were all faked. Tactics was good, they told me. Buy it, they told me. Buy it on day one, they told me. "Brilliant and eminently playable," they told me. "Bring back the joy of Fallout," they told me. A deal at twice the price, they told me.

      I don't hold a grudge or anything. I don't even want my money back. No, it's best this way... I've just been disappointed for 15 years. It was like $60 too. I was pretty well off in 2001 but not wealthy or anything. We'd just expanded and I was paying myself less than I was paying some of the folks who worked for me. I had two kids (I guess I still have them). I had things like

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  20. Cheaters was my favorite show on tv. by truck_soccer · · Score: 2

    And that is what the gaming community needs: someone like Joey Greco and his team of detectives to kick the doors in on these cheating bastards and expose them on camera in front of literally tens of people.

  21. Re:MARVEL AT MY LEVEL 9999 ETHEREAL LOGIC BOMB by trevc · · Score: 1

    and you never grew up....

  22. Re:News for gamers with no life? by gstoddart · · Score: 1

    "It's stuff that might get hits and make dice more money."

    Dice sold Slashdot. Maybe you missed it?

    Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

    The particulars of who wants to sell ads to us isn't really something we much care about, though I'm sure the new owners will have their own spin on pissing off the users depending on what their favorite things to shill for are.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  23. Just quietly stick the cheaters together. by MrL0G1C · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Valve should just quietly put the cheaters all by themselves, let them piss each other off whilst everyone else gets on with life.

    --
    Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    1. Re:Just quietly stick the cheaters together. by yodleboy · · Score: 1

      oh god that would be great. instead of blanket VAC bans, cheaters can only get matched with other cheaters. Add spectator mode for non-cheater accounts and you have the makings of a popular YouTube channel.

    2. Re:Just quietly stick the cheaters together. by Sowelu · · Score: 1

      That already happens doesn't it? With a VAC ban, you can't connect to VAC servers, but nothing stops banned people from connecting to non-VAC servers. It's just assumed they're full of hackers, so nobody else goes there (except pirates).

  24. Progress Quest by ffkom · · Score: 1

    Well, the most automatized of all MMO's certainly is Progress Quest. What fun!

  25. Not really a Trojan... by Grog6 · · Score: 1

    It actually Did the things it was supposed to do.

    It didn't contain any malware.

    Its downloader-claimed flaw was that it accomplished it's primary functions in such a way as to be easily noticed, which Actually Did perform the Overall Intent of the program as written by the programmer; which was to Draw the permaban for the downloader.

    I would call that a Meatspace Hack, more than anything. :)

    Code to overwrite all the HD boot files would have been just as easy to get them to load, lol.

    The first programs were designed as logic bombs, and only were noticeable after a time period, but neither was a Trojan; they performed every task requested, and didn't corrupt anything. :)

    More people should do this. :)

    I gave up playing anything that wasn't invite only a long time ago over script kiddies...

    --
    Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
  26. Re:MARVEL AT MY LEVEL 9999 ETHEREAL LOGIC BOMB by zlives · · Score: 1

    once you go asshole... you never grow up

  27. Re:Video Game Entrapment or trojan? by siliconsmiley · · Score: 1

    Because it's not being done by law enforcement officers to arrest criminals. It's being used by a corporation to catch people violating the terms of the EULA.

  28. Re:News for gamers with no life? by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

    Dice sold Slashdot. Maybe you missed it?

    http://meta.slashdot.org/story...

    I did! I wonder what that will mean for us users. Maybe some of the slashvertisements will stop?

  29. Computer game rules are copyrighted by tepples · · Score: 1

    Do you consider multiplayer sports to be pointless too?

    Consider that televised sports are the biggest thing keeping people from "cord cutting" (ending a multichannel pay TV subscription). But when this is pointed out in Slashdot comments, advocates of cord cutting often reply along the lines "and nothing of value was lost." Perhaps iamacat is among the users with this attitude.

    And how are the rules of a computer game any more or less "made up" than the rules of tennis

    Because a computer game's rules are subject to copyright, unlike the rules of lawn tennis. The Tennis Company lacks grounds to sue unlicensed makers of tennis equipment that imply no USTA affiliation, unlike The Tetris Company.

    or the rule that a marathon is 26.2 miles and not some other length, etc?

    A physical sport or tabletop game can be "modded" provided that all participants agree. This allows for exploration of a larger space of forms of play that has chess as a subset, such as nonstandard starting positions and nonstandard pieces. Video game publishers, on the other hand, use copyright to block use of mods.

  30. Gamerscore by tepples · · Score: 2

    You can't actually cheat in a single player game

    Or at least you couldn't until console makers introduced achievements (Xbox) or trophies (PlayStation) as a means of comparing your e-PINGAS to those of your friends.

    1. Re:Gamerscore by cwsumner · · Score: 1

      You can't actually cheat in a single player game

      Or at least you couldn't until console makers introduced achievements (Xbox) or trophies (PlayStation) as a means of comparing your e-PINGAS to those of your friends.

      There were plenty of "landmarks" before they mechanized them.

      My friends and I don't worry about "beating" games, we just discuss what and how.
      In fact, now days a lot of single player games can't really be "beat" because they don't end.

  31. The Last Starfighter by tepples · · Score: 2

    special video game and it turns out that it was a real recruitment tool

    So it wasn't The Last Starfighter (1984)?

  32. 'Logic bomb' indeed by Lauriy · · Score: 1

    Something has to be wrong with ones processing unit if it can't logically deduce installing malware is a bad idea.