Raised This Month: $23 Target: $400
 5% 

[ANY] Little Anti-Cheat


Post New Thread Reply   
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
J_Tanzanite
Member
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Norway
Old 07-29-2020 , 11:59   Re: [ANY] Little Anti-Cheat
Reply With Quote #171

Quote:
Originally Posted by BReeZ View Post
I run a plugin that disables the stamina/restriction of ducks, so you can duck spam with mouswheel as example.

Would the plugin go nuts because of this?
Depends, if your plugin does this by inserting IN_BULLRUSH into usercmds, then yes.
But I'm guessing your plugin doesn't go about it this way... Would have to see the source to be sure.

If your plugin doesn't insert that button press, then no, everything should be fine.

Here's the Anti-Duck-Delay/FastDuck detection code of Lilac btw:
Code:
if (ggame == GAME_CSGO && icvar[CVAR_ANTI_DUCK_DELAY] && (buttons & IN_BULLRUSH))
	lilac_detected_anti_duck_delay(client);
If your plugin does actually insert IN_BULLRUSH, then you can disable the Anti-Duck-Delay/FastDuck detection in lilac by this convar: "lilac_anti_duck_delay" "0"
Which you can change in the config file, found at: "cfg/sourcemod/lilac_config.cfg"
J_Tanzanite is offline
enderandrew
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2020
Old 07-29-2020 , 12:00   Re: [ANY] Little Anti-Cheat
Reply With Quote #172

Quote:
Originally Posted by BReeZ View Post
I run a plugin that disables the stamina/restriction of ducks, so you can duck spam with mouswheel as example.

Would the plugin go nuts because of this?
In your particular case I'd recommend disabling a check if you know it isn't appropriate for your server.

lilac_angles "0"
lilac_angles_patch "0"

Though I suppose you could request a convar to separate duck checks from the rest of angle checks.
enderandrew is offline
J_Tanzanite
Member
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Norway
Old 07-29-2020 , 12:04   Re: [ANY] Little Anti-Cheat
Reply With Quote #173

Quote:
Originally Posted by enderandrew View Post
In your particular case I'd recommend disabling a check if you know it isn't appropriate for your server.

lilac_angles "0"
lilac_angles_patch "0"

Though I suppose you could request a convar to separate duck checks from the rest of angle checks.
Angle checks and Duck checks aren't done through the same ConVar tho, setting lilac_angles and lilac_angles_patch to 0 doesn't disable ADD/FastDuck checks...

You can disable ADD/FastDuck detections through the ConVar lilac_anti_duck_delay
J_Tanzanite is offline
xSLOW
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Romania
Old 07-31-2020 , 16:07   Re: [ANY] Little Anti-Cheat
Reply With Quote #174

Hi, I want to make BHOP detector more safe, can I modify this value from 5 to a bigger number if im using "lilac_bhop 2"?

https://github.com/J-Tanzanite/Littl.../lilac.sp#L411
__________________
My servers:



Contact:
* Steam: https://steamcommunity.com/id/imslow2k17/
xSLOW is offline
J_Tanzanite
Member
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Norway
Old 07-31-2020 , 16:46   Re: [ANY] Little Anti-Cheat
Reply With Quote #175

Quote:
Originally Posted by xSLOW View Post
Hi, I want to make BHOP detector more safe, can I modify this value from 5 to a bigger number if im using "lilac_bhop 2"?

https://github.com/J-Tanzanite/Littl.../lilac.sp#L411
You could, but you should also then modify this line: https://github.com/J-Tanzanite/Littl...lilac.sp#L1879
Because "lilac_bhop 2" means it will also consider how many ticks you held down your jump key while doing perfect bhops.
There really isn't any point of modifying the bhop max counter if you're using "lilac_bhop 2", though.

If you really wanna stay on the safe side... The best option would be to not ban for Bhop at all...
Bhop detections really just come down to statistics, and there is no 100% safe option.
The default settings are the most optimal.

That said, if you do still wish to ban for Bhop and be safe, use "lilac_bhop 1", setting this to 1 doesn't make any difference for legit players, but it does for cheaters.
Doing this also means fewer cheaters who use bhop will get banned though.

If you are REALLY concerned about these things and wanna be near 99,999999999% sure bans are valid, use "lilac_bhop 1" and modify this line from 10 to 15+: https://github.com/J-Tanzanite/Littl.../lilac.sp#L410
Doing this will cause most cheaters who bhop to not get caught, but it lowers the chance of a false positive drastically... Honestly, no idea why you would do this if it just ends up catching few or no cheaters. But if that's your preference, then this is is the best way to be sure bans are valid.
J_Tanzanite is offline
xSLOW
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Romania
Old 07-31-2020 , 20:16   Re: [ANY] Little Anti-Cheat
Reply With Quote #176

Thanks for your reply!
I want to be sure when someone gets banned for something. Making it to ban only obvious cheaters would be okay for me.
__________________
My servers:



Contact:
* Steam: https://steamcommunity.com/id/imslow2k17/
xSLOW is offline
J_Tanzanite
Member
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Norway
Old 08-01-2020 , 06:20   Re: [ANY] Little Anti-Cheat
Reply With Quote #177

Quote:
Originally Posted by xSLOW View Post
Thanks for your reply!
I want to be sure when someone gets banned for something. Making it to ban only obvious cheaters would be okay for me.
In that case, you might wanna set "lilac_aimbot_autoshoot" to "0" as well.
Autoshoot is a part of aimbot detections, and it detects when a cheat is shooting for the player.
This isn't visible to spectators or SourceTV demos.
You can get this detection on rage hackers, but you can also get it on legit cheaters (cheaters who try to look legit).
So if you only wanna deal with rage hackers, then disabling autoshoot detections might be ideal for your purpose.

Also, this might be ideal for you if you wanna record aimbotters automatically: https://forums.alliedmods.net/showthread.php?t=325115
J_Tanzanite is offline
Alex101192
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2018
Old 08-02-2020 , 14:47   Re: [ANY] Little Anti-Cheat
Reply With Quote #178

Some people got banned for 8 hours with this reason " [SourceSleuth] Duplicate account ". I have never seen this before. Is that a false?
Alex101192 is offline
J_Tanzanite
Member
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Norway
Old 08-02-2020 , 15:51   Re: [ANY] Little Anti-Cheat
Reply With Quote #179

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex101192 View Post
Some people got banned for 8 hours with this reason " [SourceSleuth] Duplicate account ". I have never seen this before. Is that a false?
SourceSleuth is a different plugin, and is not a part of Lilac.
J_Tanzanite is offline
whiteskypony
Member
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: vsh_crevice_b5
Old 08-02-2020 , 15:52   Re: [ANY] Little Anti-Cheat
Reply With Quote #180

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex101192 View Post
Some people got banned for 8 hours with this reason " [SourceSleuth] Duplicate account ". I have never seen this before. Is that a false?
https://forums.alliedmods.net/showthread.php?p=1818793

Quote:
SourceSleuth:

This plugin allows you to automatic ban players who create new account or simple just join with another account when they are banned.

The plugin will search for the ip in sourcebans and if found you can chose between some different options trought the cVars.
__________________
Steam | Servers | Discord: √ | Maximo | ♪#5396


whiteskypony is offline
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 16:26.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Theme made by Freecode