[borzaka]

Originally Posted by NeQ Hi, I'm using the 1.5.1 version of Lilac and banned players are saved to basebans.cfg instead of sourcebans. lilac_sourcebans "1" Checking ban plugins: Material-Admin: Loaded: No ConVar lilac_materialadmin = 1 Sourcebans++: Loaded: No ConVar lilac_sourcebans = 1

I'am also using the 1.5.1 version, and the bans are shown correctly in SourceBans++

lilac_ban_status
==[Little Anti-Cheat 1.5.1]==
Checking ban plugins:
Material-Admin:
        Loaded: No
        ConVar lilac_materialadmin = 0
Sourcebans++:
        Loaded: Yes
        ConVar lilac_sourcebans = 1

What SourceBans version are you using?

[NeQ]

Originally Posted by borzaka I'am also using the 1.5.1 version, and the bans are shown correctly in SourceBans++ lilac_ban_status ==[Little Anti-Cheat 1.5.1]== Checking ban plugins: Material-Admin: Loaded: No ConVar lilac_materialadmin = 0 Sourcebans++: Loaded: Yes ConVar lilac_sourcebans = 1 What SourceBans version are you using?

Sorry, that was my mistake. The reason was the wrong version of sourcebans on the server. Everything works fine.

[J_Tanzanite]

Originally Posted by Ejziponken Hows it going with the DB logging? I really really want that.

Seems to have been canceled for now, sadly.

I don't know anything about SQL, so I can't add such a feature.
The reason why it was on the table is because someone else offered to add it for me.
We talked about it for a while, but he stopped responding about three weeks ago.

SQL logging would be a great feature to have, but I don't know anything about SQL, and I'm terrible with web development, so I can't do much about it.

( V-v) Sorry.

[J_Tanzanite]

Originally Posted by Alex101192 I will be honest, I didn't believe all these bhop bans were legit. But after further investigation, I have come to the sad conclusions that there is really all these people abusing bhop to gain their cheap speedhack. Sure I have had some false positives (reason why I set it to ban for 4 hours only), but at least 95% of these bans are all legit. Scary to think that exploits are normalized so much to the point where people think I am banning them because of them using bhop scripts instead of the actual actual act of bunny hopping.

Yeah, Bhop is the most used cheat feature. And since you tend not to spawn in the middle of a fight, it's usually the first thing cheaters will use on their way to the battle field.

This is at least my experience with my own Anti-Cheat, Bhop is the nr 1 reason why cheaters are banned (And from having been a cheater before, I know I would Bhop all the time too).
Having looked at Sourcebans logs from other servers, seems to be the same for them, which makes sense.

---

There is an update to the Bhop detection in version 1.6.0 (Still in development), which makes false positives even less common, dragging it from about 2% false detections to 0.01 to 0.1% (Maybe 0.5% at most)

However, I have had a talk with someone and they think that a false positive rate of 0.01 to 0.1% is still too high to perma ban people.

I've gone back and forth on this, and I'm still not sure I 100% agree.
If 99.5% (and higher) of Bhop bans are legit, I think a perma ban is ok; but some people may not agree with that.
So in version 1.6.0, the Bhop ban length will default to 1 month.

You can ofc change this by this command: "lilac_set_ban_length".

[eliteroyal]

you're doing a great job, i didnt see anyone reporting this for cs:source servers, would like to know if there is any feedback on css

[J_Tanzanite]

Originally Posted by eliteroyal you're doing a great job, i didnt see anyone reporting this for cs:source servers, would like to know if there is any feedback on css

Thanks
I've had some general feedback from people saying it works for CS:S, but nothing official; as in, no one has confirmed it in this thread.

It should work tho.

[borzaka]

Originally Posted by borzaka I don't think you should use translatable ban reasons. I don't know who wants the ban reason shown on the cheaters language Kick reason could be on the clients language, but the ban reason shouldn't. Yesterday an Ukrainian cheater got banned: [Little Anti-Cheat 1.5.1] Обнаружен Aimbot This is how it shows in my SourceBans++. I think it's not a good idea. It should be Aimbot Detected in this case. SMAC doesn't translate the ban reasons either: https://github.com/Silenci0/SMAC/blo...ac.phrases.txt It just use it like this, not translatable; SMAC_Ban(client, "Aimbot Detected"); Only translatable are the kick messages and some other notification to the online admins. Looking forward to the next release! I hope you can implement some of my feedback!

Could you check on this? I don't want ban reasons on the cheaters language

Yesterday a cheater from Slovakia got banned:

[Little Anti-Cheat 1.6.0-RC 4] Aimbot detekován

But I'am Hungarian, detekován doesn't mean anything to me

[J_Tanzanite]

Originally Posted by borzaka Could you check on this? I don't want ban reasons on the cheaters language Yesterday a cheater from Slovakia got banned: But I'am Hungarian, detekován doesn't mean anything to me

The reason why ban reasons are translated to the cheater's language, is because not everyone speaks English (or the server owner's language).
And I believe that if someone gets banned, they should have the opportunity to understand *why* they were banned so they can appeal the ban if they believe it's incorrect. Having the ban reason be in their native tongue helps in that regard.

I can see why you might not want this, as in some cases, the ban reason which is displayed in chat and on sourcebans can be incomprehensible... To most people.

I'll add an option in version 1.7.0 where all bans are displayed in the language of the server.
Currently, version 1.6.0 (The one you are using) is being finalized and soon released (as we discussed on github), and I rather not delay that update any further, as it has been in development for a long time.

A temporary solution would be to change the translation files and remove all references to "ban_x", because if the translated phrase isn't found in the cheater's language, it will fallback to English.
Or alternatively, you could delete the translations all together (would not recommend, as some kick messages, welcome messages etc are nice to have translated to players).

But yeah, I'll add this in a later version.

[8guawong]

just installed the latest version from github and i got a bunch of "[Little Anti-Cheat 1.6.0] Anti-Duck-Delay Detected" bans

is it normal?

[J_Tanzanite]

Originally Posted by 8guawong just installed the latest version from github and i got a bunch of "[Little Anti-Cheat 1.6.0] Anti-Duck-Delay Detected" bans is it normal?

Yes.

Anti-Duck-Delay (more commonly known as FastDuck) is an exploit cheats in CS:GO have that allows you to spam your duck key without being slowed down.
Normally in CS:GO, you have some sort of "stamina" for ducking, and the more you duck, the slower it gets.

However, cheats can bypass this restriction by sending a key input to the server (that for some reason bypasses it).
I've tested this out, and this key cannot be sent by normal players without cheats (If anyone can disprove this, tell me... And VALVe).

Which... Makes sense. VALVe did put in an anti-duck-spam mechanism, and having a key input that would effectively disable that wouldn't make any sense.

So yeah, the bans are legit.