PDA

View Full Version : Beta6 Is Nearly Done


Cruicky
26th December, 2004, 08:09 PM
As the title says, Beta6 is nearly complete. Now is your chance to suggest to me new ideas that you might like added.

Added so far:
Netspeed Monitor
Team Beacon Distance Fix

To add:
Add a GUID ban via WebAdmin

Warped_Out
26th December, 2004, 10:44 PM
Cruicky,

As someone earlier suggested, is there anyway to add sorting capability to the categories you have in the SafeGame Database? such as the nick, GUID, and IP

That would be quite helpful.

Tyrell
26th December, 2004, 11:42 PM
Hope too there'll be real resolved problem with time out in class checks(stage2)

Brando67
27th December, 2004, 02:16 AM
all I want fro new years is a new safeGame, new SafGame, New SafeGame
all I wnat for new years is a new SafeGame, new SafGame, New SafeGame

sing it.

Baiter
27th December, 2004, 02:35 AM
all I want fro new years is a new safeGame, new SafGame, New SafeGame
all I wnat for new years is a new SafeGame, new SafGame, New SafeGame


lol

gammo
27th December, 2004, 07:09 AM
The LAG.. really need to figure out a way to stop lag during gameplay when players log on after the game has started.

And effective Admin control of what checks are going to be carried out, and also, if the Admin selects to ONLY log the offender not to advertise his dirty arse all over the server with on-screen messages, just keep it quiet and logged.

I find more cheaters come back if security software does NOT kick them. This means, that the admin gets a lot more violation information on them, so when he aplies the Global ban, it simply can not be argued other wise, because the said offeder, has been repeteadly logged.

I have had alot of trouble in the past, because I only have a little bit of information of the illegal files... were if I had had more then one log, there is no argument.

Ohh and the UT2Vote 4.8 issue, needs to be resolved, otherwise a lot of servers will not be running your software.

Techslacker
27th December, 2004, 07:24 AM
Any chance you figured out the stage 2 class check time-outs? Is there anyway to enhance the logging so that we have a better idea as to where/how it's timing out?

Also is there a way to log every game rather than just the ones that detect an insecurity? I know alot of folks like to keep logs to a minimum but it's handy to go back and look through sometimes. If there isn't a way, can you add that function?

Techslacker
27th December, 2004, 07:29 AM
And effective Admin control of what checks are going to be carried out, and also, if the Admin selects to ONLY log the offender not to advertise his dirty arse all over the server with on-screen messages, just keep it quiet and logged.

If the feature to log only and not advertise is implemented, I'll likely not be recommending safegame to any admins and that players stay away from those servers. Advertising allows for witnesses to be available so that an admin is not as likely to frame someone and also keeps the dirty admins from setting things up easily so that their team can cheat without being detected by other players on the server.

I believe an early version of the server software combined with an early version of tcc did something like this and certain admins took advantage of it which makes it tough for players or another team that might be scrimming or having a match to prove there is a wrongdoing.

Bad idea!

LOKy
27th December, 2004, 06:27 PM
Cruicky, u kwon TOST for TO?

the server tool, to change settings per gui during the game

[BBF]Killinya
27th December, 2004, 10:40 PM
my one wish is for beta to allow multiple server instances on the same machine without having DB lock errrors so neither can write.

pharao
28th December, 2004, 05:10 PM
PLEASE!!!

http://www.unrealadmin.org/forums/showthread.php?t=9077
http://www.unrealadmin.org/forums/showthread.php?t=8499

Can we have the option to disable the classes checks, but continue to log the client packages?

We have about eight servers in brazil, but none have the safegame. The problem is the time we have to wait the checks. We donĀ“t have fast and top computers. Here 5+ minutes to check a player...

I think that package logs, and the very nice webadmin interface, are enough here.

Please, please, please.

Pip
28th December, 2004, 11:19 PM
Hi Cruiky,

Something that has come up over the last few days that you might want to incorporate into Safegame.
No where on the server is there a log of who has logged onto Webmin. The reason I am asking is that if someone has multiple Admins a log system will show who last logged onto the Webmin and it will log which admin banned a player.

Let me know what you think and whether it is possible?

ArPharazon
29th December, 2004, 04:05 AM
Gammo - what ut2vote48 issue? If you mean the safegame options not showing in webadmin, then you need to set 'bWebAdmin=false' in the ut2vote settings.

Techslacker - you could use SafeGame to log every game ... but you'd be better off using el_muerte's PlayerJoin mutator which is part of his ServerExt collection (http://ut2004.elmuerte.com/ServerExt). It will log guids, ips, nickname & netspeed changes, and as a bonus, there is a 3rd party php script/website tool called UTLogCheck (http://www.ggmj.de/utlogcheck/) that can parse the playerjoin output logfiles into a nice display format with search capabilities.

ArPharazon
29th December, 2004, 04:11 AM
Killinya']my one wish is for beta to allow multiple server instances on the same machine without having DB lock errrors so neither can write.
Cruicky - re the above - I have 1 dedicated server install, out of which i run 6 servers via different ini files. The playerdb files all use 'save.tmp' during startup or map changes, so problems if 2 servers change at the same time.

Please change this so that the temp file has a unique name during startup / mapchanges, i.e. same as the logfile name, but .tmp instead.

ArPharazon
29th December, 2004, 04:36 AM
A couple of INGAME commandlets would be very handy! (e.g. mutate safegame <cmd> ...')

1) a 'whois' command to display the guid, ip and list of fakenicks in the console for a specified player.

e.g. mutate safegame whois <playername>

where the <playername> param accepts partial matches (some clans / players use special chars in their nicks). A slight variation of this command could eliminate the need to enter the playername, e.g.

mutate safegame whois <color> <number>

where color = 'r' or 'b' for red or blue, and number = the player position from 1 to 5 - relative to the scoreboard.

The serveradmin should be able to choose if the whole guid is displayed, or just the 1st and / or last 8 chars. The serveradmin should also be able to toggle whether or not non-admins can view this info.

2) a 'whoisall' command to dump the guids for all players on the server - handy for CB wars. ('whoisred' and 'whoisblue' commands to dump guids for just those teams might be better).

Brando67
29th December, 2004, 05:09 AM
The bells and Whistles are cool,

But.......

It's SafeGame....
It's main Function is to Stop Cheaters.


/me taps his fingers on the desktop.

Techslacker
29th December, 2004, 07:03 AM
Techslacker - you could use SafeGame to log every game ... but you'd be better off using el_muerte's PlayerJoin mutator which is part of his ServerExt collection (http://ut2004.elmuerte.com/ServerExt). It will log guids, ips, nickname & netspeed changes, and as a bonus, there is a 3rd party php script/website tool called UTLogCheck (http://www.ggmj.de/utlogcheck/) that can parse the playerjoin output logfiles into a nice display format with search capabilities.

Thanks for the info but I think you got me confused with someone else or misunderstood what I was stating earlier.

I do not want to see safegame gain the capability to log and not advertise what gets detected. Such a feature is too easy to abuse.

On a different note I agree with the last post in that all of the bells and whistles are nice but it worries me that they might be taking away from development and testing time on stopping cheats. All of these things are nice to have but a strong anticheat solution that doesn't kill the enjoyment of the game is what admins and players are truly demanding.

For what it's worth beta 5 has run pretty well for our server so I'm looking forward to beta 6. It is my hope that it runs well enough to get accepted by more in the CTF LGI 135 community.

frogger
29th December, 2004, 11:03 AM
coming late in the game on this one...but one feature i'd like to see at some point....if illegal files are detected (bot files specifically)..automatically start a serverside demorec. (optional of course).. Even admins that are around alot..miss one or two..would be nice to have a demo of offender. Just an idea. Oh..demo of course stops at match end, then kicks. :)

ArPharazon
29th December, 2004, 01:41 PM
Thanks for the info but I think you got me confused with someone else or misunderstood what I was stating earlier.

I do not want to see safegame gain the capability to log and not advertise what gets detected. Such a feature is too easy to abuse.

On a different note I agree with the last post in that all of the bells and whistles are nice but it worries me that they might be taking away from development and testing time on stopping cheats. All of these things are nice to have but a strong anticheat solution that doesn't kill the enjoyment of the game is what admins and players are truly demanding.

For what it's worth beta 5 has run pretty well for our server so I'm looking forward to beta 6. It is my hope that it runs well enough to get accepted by more in the CTF LGI 135 community.I have not got you confused with someone else. In an earlier post in this thread, you asked the following question:

Also is there a way to log every game rather than just the ones that detect an insecurity? I know alot of folks like to keep logs to a minimum but it's handy to go back and look through sometimes. If there isn't a way, can you add that function?I was suggesting the PlayerJoin mutator as an alternative rather than having safegame logging every single game. Someone has just recently written a tool that can parse those output files and turn it into a nice web-based display with search capabilities.

At present, SG only creates a logfile when a violation occurs - and this is ideal for admins who run multiple servers that are highly active, because if you see a logfile - you know it contains a violation. If SG logged every single game that occurred, you would have to check every logfile to see if a violation occurred first, before taking action (i.e. to ban or not to ban).

Safegame logging a violation but not advertising it is a completely different issue. It has always had this ability, and I agree that its undesirable. It is enabled by default via the following 2 settings:

bShowConsoleMessages=True
bShowScreenMessages=True

AntiTCC also has the ability to turn off the announcement of violations btw - the only way to know if its on or off is to check the console when the map starts.

ArPharazon
29th December, 2004, 01:45 PM
coming late in the game on this one...but one feature i'd like to see at some point....if illegal files are detected (bot files specifically)..automatically start a serverside demorec. (optional of course).. Even admins that are around alot..miss one or two..would be nice to have a demo of offender. Just an idea. Oh..demo of course stops at match end, then kicks. :)A brilliant suggestion! Might be handy if it was configurable too - eg. let them stay on for 5 mins (or so) while the serverside demorec is gathering evidence, then kick/session/perm ban them.

=DF=Scourge
29th December, 2004, 02:23 PM
I just want less lag.

ShiningSquirrel
29th December, 2004, 02:46 PM
Well I don't think this would be something for beta6, but maybe for v1.0 and UTAN 2?
It would be great if you could add a UTAN ban right from the webadmin. Maybe have an option "enable UTAN banning: true/false" in the ini. If you said true, you enter in your UTAN ID and password hash into your ini and UTAN shows on the webadmin. Enter false and it does not show at all for those who do not use UTAN.
If you use it, click on a player name, Select UTAN ban and have the info uploaded to UTAN along with the log.
Like I said, just an idea for down the road for the final version of Safegame and UTAN 2 maybe? ;)

b][rch.Co30
29th December, 2004, 03:34 PM
Faster startup/initial checks. No bells and whistles. While the web GUI and some of the other items are great additions to the anticheat admin side of things, all I care for is a simple log file to check once a week for the lamers. SafeGameLite - I guess is what I'd like to see.

Happy Holidays!
b][rch(Co30)

Pede
29th December, 2004, 08:31 PM
Old requests:
The get GUID function similar to TCC.
Compatibility with GameMake3 custom gametypes is what I believe gammo is referring to.
ie: gammo.XTeamGame etc...

New:
If the time for the locked out initial checks can not be reduced the possibility of a configurable
game pauser for use during team ladder matches. That when active would pause the match a
configurable amount of time to allow reconnection and initial checking of the the dropped player.
I know of one ladder that has specifically stated this is the major reason they aren't considering
SafeGame at this time. Losing a player for the current length of time it takes to get back in the
game is unacceptable to them.

Warped_Out
29th December, 2004, 11:28 PM
Cruicky,

Most of the complaints I observe on our clan servers and on this forum seem to indicate some impatience for waiting for SafeGame to verify at the beginning of a game or the lag associated at the beginning when many peeps are still entering the game, etc.

One of my clan members suggested an interesting thought that he felt only peeps entereing the server in the first 8-10 seconds (for ex.), should be verified, so the game could proceed and any others checking in to play after the 10 seconds, etc. could be queued up to be verified one at a time.

You may have already thought of or experiemented with that thought but just wanted to pass it along as it sounded interesting and feasible to me.

Warped_Out

frogger
30th December, 2004, 05:13 AM
Well I don't think this would be something for beta6, but maybe for v1.0 and UTAN 2?

pretty sure this is implemented in UTAN 2.0.

pharao
30th December, 2004, 06:22 AM
[rch.Co30']Faster startup/initial checks. No bells and whistles. While the web GUI and some of the other items are great additions to the anticheat admin side of things, all I care for is a simple log file to check once a week for the lamers. SafeGameLite - I guess is what I'd like to see.

Happy Holidays!
b][rch(Co30)


YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

SafeGameLite!!! :D :D :D

Pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!

Techslacker
30th December, 2004, 07:43 AM
I have not got you confused with someone else. In an earlier post in this thread, you asked the following question:

I was suggesting the PlayerJoin mutator as an alternative rather than having safegame logging every single game. Someone has just recently written a tool that can parse those output files and turn it into a nice web-based display with search capabilities.

At present, SG only creates a logfile when a violation occurs - and this is ideal for admins who run multiple servers that are highly active, because if you see a logfile - you know it contains a violation. If SG logged every single game that occurred, you would have to check every logfile to see if a violation occurred first, before taking action (i.e. to ban or not to ban).

Safegame logging a violation but not advertising it is a completely different issue. It has always had this ability, and I agree that its undesirable. It is enabled by default via the following 2 settings:

bShowConsoleMessages=True
bShowScreenMessages=True

AntiTCC also has the ability to turn off the announcement of violations btw - the only way to know if its on or off is to check the console when the map starts.

Ah now I know what you're talking about. I thought you were speaking of the more recent statements I had made. Thanks for the info!

As to antitcc not advertising maybe I just read or heard wrong at some point. My apologies if I misled anyone. Not sure where I even read or heard that but I just remember hearing or reading it in the context that it was a feature early on and would no longer work with newer versions of 2k4 than I think the first or second version. Bah...maybe I was just hallucinating. ;)

Anyways thanks for the info!

Techslacker
30th December, 2004, 07:46 AM
A brilliant suggestion! Might be handy if it was configurable too - eg. let them stay on for 5 mins (or so) while the serverside demorec is gathering evidence, then kick/session/perm ban them.

Making that configurable would be nice. I can see where for matches or scrims it would be handy but for some pub servers that can be 5 min or however long that drives players away. Some admins would rather just get them off right away so it doesn't drive traffic from their servers.

ArPharazon
30th December, 2004, 07:38 PM
No worries techslacker :)

btw - I think these are the entries that control the advertising of kicks in antitcc:
bBroadcastConsoleErrorMessages=True
bBroadcastClientScreenMessages=True

Should be removed imho :)

Azura
31st December, 2004, 12:07 AM
Get SafeGame approved by Clanbase pronto so people can stop using AntiTCC :) .

GraveDigga
31st December, 2004, 02:59 AM
Damn this thing has more bugs then the bronx......... You looking for suggestions on this anti cheat.. I suggest you start over from scratch because this thing runs like shit!!!!!!! LAG LAG LAG,,,, Kicking for no reason.. etc etc too many problems to list..hell if i kept this thing on my server any longer i would have 0 players coming anymore...

Techslacker
31st December, 2004, 03:14 AM
Sometimes I can't help but wonder if people complain about the lag that much just to complain so they can try to use their cheats under a different solution or none at all. We run it on our server which is CTF LGI 135 and it runs pretty well. We've got lag a few times but once we upped the tick rate a bit, it felt smoother. Granted there are other gametypes that it might run different with. I've just found it funny that a few people who some might find has questionable shots or seems to always know how to head off the flag carrier had below par games for them on our server and did nothing but complain about lag when everyone else thought it was fine during those games.

Matter of fact I've yet to notice any suspicious shots on our server since we put safegame b5 on it after running antitcc. I think we might test antitcc 118e for awhile but will probably check out b6 once it's released.

Looking forward to b6.

BetaButterfly
31st December, 2004, 01:35 PM
Sometimes I can't help but wonder if people complain about the lag that much just to complain so they can try to use their cheats under a different solution or none at all. We run it on our server which is CTF LGI 135 and it runs pretty well. We've got lag a few times but once we upped the tick rate a bit, it felt smoother. Granted there are other gametypes that it might run different with. I've just found it funny that a few people who some might find has questionable shots or seems to always know how to head off the flag carrier had below par games for them on our server and did nothing but complain about lag when everyone else thought it was fine during those games.

Matter of fact I've yet to notice any suspicious shots on our server since we put safegame b5 on it after running antitcc.

Ditto

TheRogue
31st December, 2004, 08:52 PM
In response to Techslacker

I adminned a CB game a couple of weeks ago, running 5e, and it was an utter joke

People were timing out during the match constantly, we were pausing every few seconds

Now, I'm an ESL admin and am waiting for SG to stabalise so I can move all our ladders over to SG, I was really up for moving in the next few days, but after CB went back I'm holding off for at least 6

Brando67
1st January, 2005, 07:08 AM
Damn this thing has more bugs then the bronx......... You looking for suggestions on this anti cheat.. I suggest you start over from scratch because this thing runs like shit!!!!!!! LAG LAG LAG,,,, Kicking for no reason.. etc etc too many problems to list..hell if i kept this thing on my server any longer i would have 0 players coming anymore...


U either need a better server......
Or u need to learn about the settings a bit more....
or BOTH!!!!!

SafeGame runs pretty good on my server,
I've used it for Matches and No-ones Bitched in quite some time..
So somethings obvioulsy wrong GraveDigga.
Sometimes I remove all mutators from my server and just run the stock game.
And sure , my server stays Busy.....
Any true Gamer likes to play on a stock server,
From my expierence, They sure play smooth.
These times I put my trust in Utan and The players.
But Unfortunately,
Due to whatever entices these peep's to download and use bot's,
let alone pay for one
This kills me..... laughing.
Security is needed.

Happy New Years
Brando`

Cruicky
1st January, 2005, 12:14 PM
In response to Techslacker

I adminned a CB game a couple of weeks ago, running 5e, and it was an utter joke

People were timing out during the match constantly, we were pausing every few seconds

Now, I'm an ESL admin and am waiting for SG to stabalise so I can move all our ladders over to SG, I was really up for moving in the next few days, but after CB went back I'm holding off for at least 6

Timing out on Class Check 2 by chance?

TheRogue
3rd January, 2005, 11:44 AM
I honestly can't remember, this was a good month or so ago, sorry :)

Was iCTF 5on5 on custom maps (whatever is in the CB iCTF OC rotation), 1.5e, no UTComp, players were on server for a little bit than time out..

Come to think of it I think it was probably something like SafeGame timing out itself.. not an actual check

CVROY
3rd January, 2005, 11:01 PM
Is There a way to have safe game adjust clients gamma and brightness, or to check them like FOV?

I had some person send me a screenie from my server and you need sunblock and sunglasses to look at his screen... no wonder he sees people a mile away...LOL

Techslacker
3rd January, 2005, 11:26 PM
Sadly I know some folks who always wear sunglasses no matter what they do so penalizing such a thing might be a bad move. I can understand checking for below 80 fov but why bother checking for more than 120?

CVROY
3rd January, 2005, 11:46 PM
Playing a good game entails an equal environment to have the match in. If I played a team game with 6 players each team and one team had gamma and brightness cranked up, you would certainly see how it affects the game. I played a game with the screen like that and I must say it is a definate advantage. My score was considerably higher.

7d.NeMes|S
4th January, 2005, 01:08 PM
Playing a good game entails an equal environment to have the match in. If I played a team game with 6 players each team and one team had gamma and brightness cranked up, you would certainly see how it affects the game. I played a game with the screen like that and I must say it is a definate advantage. My score was considerably higher.

Sure lets force SG also to put all the Graphic details to the MAX, let it force 1600x1200 resolution, low gamma and brightness so that the nice atmosphere can be seen of UT2004, all special effects ON. Because I play with those settings and I don't want others to have other settings because they might have an advantage over me. The CHEATERS!!!

If epic made some nice skins that u cud actually see (any1 played compressed without Bskins?) then we wudn't be forced to crank up the gamma and brightness of the game to actually see what we are shooting at. I got my brightness set to full, and got binds to change the gamma from 0.8 to 1.0 and 1.2. Cos without bskins you can't see ur opponent on certain maps (like compressed). People are playing like that since ut99.

rc.gringo
4th January, 2005, 01:09 PM
A lite version as others have mentioned please - the time it takes for inital checks makes it unsuitable for league use atm :( (at least that is the response from the community at www.fraghub.net)

I posted once before about the timeouts during class checks (which i presume have been addressed) and some 'false' kicking for the spider steriods mutator and some ece skins...

I've been on holiday since before christmas but am relieved to see work still progressing on this....as an admin at Fraghub, we were just about to bin SG as our cheat protection because of the complaints of lag during initial checks and the timeout kicks making the game 'unplayable'. I really hope these 2 things have been addressed so that we can continue with SG :)

Keep up the good work :)

Techslacker
4th January, 2005, 02:42 PM
Playing a good game entails an equal environment to have the match in. If I played a team game with 6 players each team and one team had gamma and brightness cranked up, you would certainly see how it affects the game. I played a game with the screen like that and I must say it is a definate advantage. My score was considerably higher.

So play it that way.

On a basketball court one team might have uniforms that stand out more(bright orange) so that they can see each other better during the action...same for other sports. Should we have it check that no one is using a belkin nostromo and have the same mouse and keybinds as well? :rolleyes:

Cruicky
4th January, 2005, 07:13 PM
The timing out during Check 2 should now be fixed, but there is little chance of a cut-down on the initial check lag (pre engine cleanup) because searching for files and performing MD5's is not a background process, plus, you cannot play during that time anyway to stop people from getting lagged in-game. It should only be about 20 seconds anyway.

CVROY
4th January, 2005, 07:56 PM
It was just an observation and just something I asked about "if it were possible"... you folks really shouldn't get your panties in a bunch over it...I guess an over the counter cream should clear up that rash though. ;)

Techslacker
4th January, 2005, 07:59 PM
Honestly I don't think the hit at the beginning of the game is really all that much worse than antitcc. Sounds to me unless Epic makes some changes it's a necessary evil.

Just as for those who whine about speedhack detection issues I wonder if some lag issues in safegame people experience are due to their own systems. In this case background processes or inadequate or improperly configured or even defective hardware. My comment on the speedhack detection is merely drawing a comparison to those who have software based firewalls installed which can cause problems on some systems where they get the speedhack detection problems. There are certainly other things that can interfere but the jist of it is that many people who point fingers at servers or anticheat solutions for their problems should investigate their own setup or connection first.

Cruicky
5th January, 2005, 09:33 AM
I'll look into this brightness, contrast and gamma problem, and maybe clamp it to the internal game limits (i.e. how high and how low you can go on the configuration menu)

ArPharazon
5th January, 2005, 12:49 PM
leave this for a future version cruicky - safegame is starting to suffer from a bad case of feature creep ....

CVROY
5th January, 2005, 01:55 PM
I'll look into this brightness, contrast and gamma problem, and maybe clamp it to the internal game limits (i.e. how high and how low you can go on the configuration menu)

When you have the time... not a super rush, I know myself and a few other admins that would use this feature.

Instead of kicking the person could safegame set the client to a prescribed value? Like to 50-75% over of what the limit is?

weeeeeee!

ArPharazon
5th January, 2005, 06:33 PM
no - do not enforce the client setting - kick them instead.

this feature can wait anyway - beta6 is delayed enough as it is.

ShiningSquirrel
5th January, 2005, 07:01 PM
no - do not enforce the client setting - kick them instead.

this feature can wait anyway - beta6 is delayed enough as it is.

I think SafeGame is getting off the track.
Setting the brightness and contrast on your computer, no matter what crazy setting, is NOT a cheat, it's a PREFERANCE. If admins want to limit it for compititions, thats not the function of an anti cheat app.

Concentrate on detacting and removing cheats, this is what we all need.

Save something like this for a compitition mod or something, it has no place in an anti cheat and should not be added. No one needs SafeGame to turn into "bloatware". ;)

4WD
5th January, 2005, 07:42 PM
Concentrate on detacting and removing cheats, this is what we all need.
so true. who cares about gamma settings and stuff like that ?

CVROY
5th January, 2005, 07:56 PM
Save something like this for a compitition mod or something, it has no place in an anti cheat and should not be added. No one needs SafeGame to turn into "bloatware". ;)


I agree, it should be a separate mutator from safegame. but the code would not make safegame really that much bigger in size... it would be hardly noticed.

un1ty.Lunatic
6th January, 2005, 12:39 AM
When I removed SafeGame b5e from our server, we all really noticed the whole game reacts faster... also many players who dont cheat get kicked for certain packages. I dont want it back on our servers, even refuse to play with it on other servers. So better improve what you have instead of adding new bells.

All high level players here in Europe dont want to play with SafeGame because of this "lag". Anti-TCC had its lag problems too, but at least its mostly over when the actual match starts. With SafeGame this laggy feeling is continuous.

Brando67
6th January, 2005, 05:01 AM
I didn't get Beta6 For new years,

See what Ya's have all done...

Moose
6th January, 2005, 09:54 AM
I'm new to useing Safe Game. The one request I have for SafeGame (not sure if it already exists though) is could you have some kind of unique text that you output next to all KNOWN aimbots/radar? So if I search my logs for the text I can quickly find all known aimbot and radar users. Scanning every log only to find skin or non-cheat package has been detected wastes my time.

Thanks

Warped_Out
6th January, 2005, 02:33 PM
I think SafeGame is getting off the track.
Setting the brightness and contrast on your computer, no matter what crazy setting, is NOT a cheat, it's a PREFERANCE. If admins want to limit it for compititions, thats not the function of an anti cheat app.

Concentrate on detacting and removing cheats, this is what we all need.

Save something like this for a compitition mod or something, it has no place in an anti cheat and should not be added. No one needs SafeGame to turn into "bloatware". ;)

I totally agree........I think some of the input here is off-track....Adjustable game settings is not a cheat. Sounds more like whining to me.....

Concentrate on anti-cheat, Stick to the KISS method (Keep it simple ____) You know the old saying....

Stay lean and trim, no bloat, and checks to a minimum. Keep the playability of the game as closely intact as possible and don't give admins tremendous access to eliminating checks. Too many unscrupulous ones out here......

Warped_Out

pingu
6th January, 2005, 04:34 PM
would like to agree in part with lunatic .
i feel that gameplay should have a higher priority .lets have a solid base before we reach for UTopia .
the power of utan means that the risks for cheats at clan level out weight the gains .ut2k4 is now a mainly competetive game format .public (elf type ) cheaters may in many peoples eyes seem a lesser threat to the game and the thought of poor gameplay.

Drewcifer69
7th January, 2005, 04:13 AM
Actually, putting a total twist on your words, "higher priority," here Pingu, but this give me an idea... would it be possible to incorporate Beta 6 with a setting to cause SafeGame to run with less of a CPU Priority than what the game's CPU Priority is??? In other words, cause SafeGame to run more in the background such that it does not interfere with actual game play. Maybe even make this a slide control in the WebAdmin interface with standard MS-NT CPU Priority times that are at or below NORMAL (i.e. NORMAL, BELOWNORMAL, LOW). This way Admins could experiment and find what works best for their scenario. CPU Affinity might also be an option too, but I doubt too many people would be able to see much benefit from that as the game already seems to be multi-threaded anyway...

I don't know... Maybe this isn't possible due to the way the package is delivered and run on a client, but it seems like good food for thought though...

You ROCK for all your hard work and efforts Cruicky!!!
Keep up the awesome work Bro!!! :thumbup:

Drewcifer

Cruicky
7th January, 2005, 09:21 AM
Sadly none of that is possible, as SafeGame is part of the game process, and is therefore subject to whatever affinity and priority is set on that process, and there is no way to create threads in UScript as far as i know anyway. :confused:

Drewcifer69
15th January, 2005, 09:50 PM
Yeah, I kind of wondered about that... Guess you're stuck having to run it through the context of the game itself. :frown:

So, how's Beta 6 coming? I wanted to let you know that I've been running 5e on my ut2004 dedicated server for almost a month now and it seems fine after the first minute or so of it checking stuff! Pretty nice I have to say! Thanks!!! :thumbup:

Also, always wondered why this isn't posted under;
http://downloads.unrealadmin.org/UT2004/AntiCheat/

Is it cause it's still Beta?

Thanks!!!
Drewcifer
[UTAN] ~=:}~Drewcifer'sDeathFest~{:=~
69.47.214.150:7777

Cruicky
16th January, 2005, 10:16 PM
Small Update:

2 problems have shown themselves during testing.

1.
SafeGame kicks when using UT2Vote, when you open the main window.

2.
Alt-Tab seems problem seems to have reappeared (unconfirmed)

Techslacker
17th January, 2005, 06:32 AM
Bah! ut2vote sucks anyways so no loss there and everyone should be playing the game and not alt-tabbing out of it. Sounds like it's ready to me. :P

Pede
17th January, 2005, 06:37 AM
In no way shape or form does UT2Vote suck. If something sucks it's Epic's implementation
of a vote system. :twisted:

CVROY
18th January, 2005, 03:46 AM
The vote that comes with the game does have it's limitations and is good if you want just a mapvote with no extras... UT2vote has a lot of really excellent features and is less buggy than Epics vote though:)

At anyrate, can't you just have the safegame ignore ut2vote? Or add a check that will not kick for it? UT2vote only runs on the clients when the server has it so you really couldn't make a bot called UT2vote.

Brando67
19th January, 2005, 12:20 AM
AweSoMe`

:p

gammo
21st January, 2005, 12:45 AM
mmm UT2Vote does not sux... if epic had the decency of implementing a serious and flexible voting system on their so called game of the year.. then maybe UT2Vote would sux.

If SafeGame is not compatible with UT2VOte 4.x then it can not be used on our server wich is controled by UT2Vote 4.x

Limited
21st January, 2005, 01:38 PM
mmm UT2Vote does not sux... if epic had the decency of implementing a serious and flexible voting system on their so called game of the year.. then maybe UT2Vote would sux.I see no need to use the bloated UT2Vote system over Epics. I have never had any problems or issues with it.