[niar82k]

^^ I hope I could help a bit with these examples

[GoD-Tony]

Thanks for all of the reports! I think 10 detections and then a ban is an appropriate number. Should this value be controlled with a Cvar? It might not be initially but can be added if requested.

Do you prefer if we keep the warnings/logs in there as well? Or should they be removed?

Originally Posted by CenT Are there really aimbot? I do not know i was not there to see ... If you can say what you think.

That person was most likely aimbotting. A Google search of his SteamID shows he is on several banlists for cheating.

[niar82k]

Logs should be left to look may be able to whether this ban is justified or not

[CenT]

Originally Posted by GoD-Tony Thanks for all of the reports! I think 10 detections and then a ban is an appropriate number. Should this value be controlled with a Cvar? It might not be initially but can be added if requested. Do you prefer if we keep the warnings/logs in there as well? Or should they be removed? That person was most likely aimbotting. A Google search of his SteamID shows he is on several banlists for cheating.

Yes you are right

We must let the logs enabled for detection, it will allow us to better monitor our servers and thus can be relate to another possible connection aimbot. The number of detections for the ban of the player who aimbot should be adjustable through a cvar.

[niar82k]

The Next Players are detected for using Aimbot ^^!
The Scan/Log works very nice

[GoD-Tony]

An auto-ban ConVar was added in r125. A new translatable phrase was also added which is shown to admins in chat for every detection.

[zeroibis]

You may also want to limit the snap for an auto ban.

If you notice not only are there more logs for actual aimbots the snaps on them are much larger.

So maybe something like over X longs in Y time with snaps over Z value get auto bans. This will remove most obvious aimbots while lower values will be sent to admins for suspicion. Also I think there should be a warring level before sending to admins to prevent over zealous admins from freaking out. Something like what I said for auto ban but with lower thresholds.

Obviously the goal is to detect aimbots without causing false positives. Sometimes you even need to be careful what you tell the admins b/c they might overreact.

[KyleS]

I was just thinking about this. Have a confidence levels. If the client snaps 5 times greater then 40° (Random Variables here), either auto ban or inform an admin that there's a potential hacker.

If a client snaps 5/7 times, Confidence would be 71.5% (Could also get 'normal' snaps and compare, adding that into the equation would be excellent).

[CenT]

Originally Posted by GoD-Tony An auto-ban ConVar was added in r125. A new translatable phrase was also added which is shown to admins in chat for every detection.

French Translation :

"fr" "[SMAC] {1} est suspectée d'utiliser un aimbot. (Détection #{2}) (Enclencher à : {3}°)"

[GoD-Tony]

Big reply coming up. Please note that I'm completely open to new ideas and coming up with the best formula, but I just want to make sure that everyone understands how it already works.

Originally Posted by zeroibis You may also want to limit the snap for an auto ban.

Right now only snaps over 45° are counted as a detection. Is this what you mean?

Originally Posted by zeroibis If you notice not only are there more logs for actual aimbots the snaps on them are much larger.

While it's true that there are usually more logs for real aimbots, the snaps aren't always much larger than the 45° restriction in place.

Take a look at my log as an example (names and IDs removed): http://pastebin.com/ivfTYvDJ

Players 1, 3, and 4 are using aimbots. Player 3 has the most obvious one with rediculous angles on every kill, but Player 1 only slightly goes over 45° on many kills. Player 4 only had 3 detections, but the warnings were enough to have an admin spectate him and make the decision to ban.

Originally Posted by zeroibis So maybe something like over X longs in Y time with snaps over Z value get auto bans. This will remove most obvious aimbots while lower values will be sent to admins for suspicion.

I believe this is the method already being used. 10 detections (default value) of over 45° on the same map would lead to an auto-ban.

Originally Posted by zeroibis Also I think there should be a warring level before sending to admins to prevent over zealous admins from freaking out. Something like what I said for auto ban but with lower thresholds. Obviously the goal is to detect aimbots without causing false positives. Sometimes you even need to be careful what you tell the admins b/c they might overreact.

I agree with this and I think some admins would freak out when the warning shows up and they don't fully understand it. Maybe the warning should only show on the second detection and onward? Most false positives are only given one detection and nothing else. Other than that I think it's a good idea for the admin to check the player to make sure nothing suspicious is happening (as shown with Player 4 in my previous example).

Originally Posted by KyleS I was just thinking about this. Have a confidence levels. If the client snaps 5 times greater then 40° (Random Variables here), either auto ban or inform an admin that there's a potential hacker. If a client snaps 5/7 times, Confidence would be 71.5% (Could also get 'normal' snaps and compare, adding that into the equation would be excellent).

I originally thought of using confidence and %, but the decision came down to what I thought admins could understand more. Showing a percentage value may be a little obscure compared to the number of detections and the degree of snap. At least then the admin knows what they are dealing with. What do you think would work best?

Originally Posted by CenT French Translation

Added, thanks.