Hacker News Reader

Comment by darkmighty | Hacker News Reader

This is one of those asymptotically unsolvable problems (like captcha) -- he just created a new game. It's called beat the cheating detector. If you have access to the detector, it becomes trivial even: no matter how advanced the detector, using a chess engine to generate a set of moves and picking the best ones which go undetected works.

It's one thing that bother me about many online games (like counter strike). Unless they make a completely locked up computer, fighting cheats (server-side) is a losing battle. The bright side is that when they become really indistinguishable from good players, we can rest easy that the play isn't being degraded at all (expect for the cheaters themselves) :)

View on HN

As for computer games, I believe there are two ways to effectively combat any "cheating":

1. Restrict what clients see and do, server-side. Many cheats rely on the fact, client game software internally has much more information that it presents to the player (wallhacks, radars/ESPs, etc), and server trusts client-originating data more than it should (speedhacks, norecoils, spawners, etc).

I know, those're due to attempts to reduce network-induced lags and lowering server loads, but having a more powerful server-side (and have an occasional desync if network lags badly) doesn't sound like an unacceptable trade-off to not have players upset by cheaters.

2. Embrace cheats as features and raise everyone abilities to best cheater's ones. There's no need to, say, have an aimbot if you have an "official" in-game ability to have autoaim.

Maybe then we'll finally have scriptable/hackable games, where one could "legally" automate routine tasks and be on a "good" side. Oh, and that MMO grinding/farming phenomena would finally die for good.

One can still cheat even in an environment where data is restricted. The 'cheating' part comes from being able to use the CPU to help the player make better or faster decisions. It doesn't have to be perfect - only enough to help the player gain an edge.

I haven't tried it in probably 15 years (and, I'm sure technique has improved exponentially, since then) but as long as you can access and reverse-engineer the data protocol (which you almost always can), you can add code logic to gain an edge.

That's what second approach is about. If cheaters can use technology to improve their gameplay through an automation - why not enhance everyone's gameplay by making such automation an official built-in game feature?

Look at all the hype 0x10c got on here because the ship had a programmable computer. Give the players some emulated low-spec hardware they can use and an API they can use it with.

Even if it doesn't appeal to everyone, it might keep the worst of the botters away from the games that don't want them.

> ... It's called beat the cheating detector. If you have access to the detector, it becomes trivial even: no matter how advanced the detector, using a chess engine to generate a set of moves and picking the best ones which go undetected works.

Except that you have to beat all future detectors as well, which is a lot harder to get access to. E.g. this is how athletes sometimes get caught out doping; they use methods which are undetectable today, but fail in a year or two.

I don't really want to press this comparison too far though, not only are the prevalent levels completely different, but doping is also a lot less clear cut than cheating in chess / counter strike. It's pretty obvious when you're cheating in the one, whereas you could argue that using as-yet not banned substances is fair game. Mind you, we have had players type in recoil-resetting scripts at competitions, and argue that it's just a configuration, so perhaps it's not as clear cut as I make it sound.

That's why you don't "win" the game, but it's an endless competition between cheats and cheat detectors.

You will find neither the ultimate cheat, nor the ultimate cheat detector.

As long as the detectors don't directly detect cheating, but instead improvement at a rate that is too high (like in the article), then if you limit your rate of improvement to a rate and distribution similar to human improvement, it is unlikely that any future program will be able to detect this.

Detecting performance enhancement solely by looking at performance is a losing battle for the detecting side.

Sure, but forcing cheaters to rate-limit their improvements to within reasonable limits would already be a huge win for the detecting side, so I'm not sure I'd call it a losing battle. It'd severely limit the utility of cheating, while at the same time forcing a long history of slow improvement which can be scrutinised.

Taken by itself, I'd tend to agree with you. In practice though, I think this can easily swing the balance in favour of the detecting side. Another angle to analyse chess games would be to see the degree to which a player's moves correlate with known chess engines. Over a long term (say, a few dozen tournaments worth of games), this type of evidence would be particularly damning; the types of chess engines which play relatively human-like, yet still are top-tier simply don't exist. Given the difficulty in creating them, and the relative rewards, I wonder if it will ever be practical to cheat.

The undetected move is the one within your track record, so cheating doesn't help much, unless you're cheating every move in every tournament. Would performance enhancing drugs be a better fit to this scenario?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com