[J_Tanzanite]

Originally Posted by eliteroyal Merril BRO, i don't know if you've noticed, BUT THE ACTUAL VERSION IS 1.5.0 and as far as i can see you're using 1.0.0 you should pay more atention, go to github and download latest version .SP and compile it yourself.

Ehh, not quite...

I explained the version numbers and the mess I made in my developmental branch, which you can find here: https://github.com/J-Tanzanite/Littl...ee/development
That's where I put all my most recent code now.

As for version 1.5.0... Version 1.5.0 IS stable, but it isn't a finished update.
To summarize what I said in my developmental branch on github:

For quite some time now, I've used Github to host my most recent changes, but the code I upload there isn't organized. I've never used github with more than one branch, meaning the master branch would often hold updates that weren't finished. The updates would be stable, but not officially done. Hence why version 1.5.0 will get updated more, without the version number changing. I always used AM to host the "official latest stable" version, and used github as a place to put the most recent changes. Although the github version is stable, it isn't offical. I never made that clear, and because of so, people may find it confusing that version 1.5.0 is stable, but the next update is version 1.5.0... The same number.

(Not a direct quote, read the README.md for more info)


Honestly, me putting developmental (but stable) code on the master branch without ever telling people that the latest official changes are on this site... Was just a massive mistake on my part... And a horrible idea.

This is why there is NOW a developmental branch, where I put my most recent changes.
Sadly tho, this means that version 1.5.0 on the master branch will get updated once the developmental code is done, to version 1.5.0... There are two versions of 1.5.0.

This mess won't happen again.
After version 1.5.0 is done, this mess will be over and my code will always be organized into two branches.
Master = Latest official stable release.
Development = New stuff to be added / changed.

And again, just to stress this, version 1.5.0 on the master branch IS STABLE, but it's not the official latest release.
The official latest release is 1.3.0, on this website.
Version 1.5.0 is the absolute latest stable release, but unofficial.

[J_Tanzanite]

Originally Posted by SnowHP https://github.com/sbpp/sourcebans-pp - I am using this version of sourcebans pp. Is it right? My sourcebans works right . I have this plugins ( https://prnt.sc/sd5hbg )

Hmm, it seems like you have all the right plugins. But I suspect the issue may lie in your configuration of Sourcebans++
Tho, I've never used Sourcebans++ before.

Do you have any other plugins, like SMAC, which do accurately ban throuh SB++ and list the bans officially?

Originally Posted by finishlast I can confirm that the false positives are gone for l4d. And I have an aimbot hit. 2020/05/07 21:15:20 [Version 1.5.0] {Name: xxxx | SteamID | IP: xxxx} is suspected of using an aimbot (Detection: 2 | Delta: 0 | TotalDelta: 0 | Detected: Autoshoot). 2020/05/07 21:15:54 [Version 1.5.0] {Name: xxxx | SteamID | IP: xxxx} is suspected of using an aimbot (Detection: 3 | Delta: 0 | TotalDelta: 0 | Detected: Autoshoot). 2020/05/07 21:168 [Version 1.5.0] {Name: xxxx | SteamID | IP: xxxx} is suspected of using an aimbot (Detection: 4 | Delta: 0 | TotalDelta: 0 | Detected: Autoshoot). 2020/05/07 21:17:21 [Version 1.5.0] {Name: xxxx | SteamID | IP: xxxx} is suspected of using an aimbot (Detection: 5 | Delta: 0 | TotalDelta: 0 | Detected: Autoshoot). 2020/05/07 21:17:21 [Version 1.5.0] {Name: xxxx | SteamID | IP: xxxx} was banned for Aimbot. Pos={8280,3729,653}, Angles={2.02168,-115.58250,0.00000}, Map="l4d_vs_airport02_offices", Team={2}, Weapon="weapon_pumpshotgun", Latency={Inc:0.000429,Out:0.041453}, Loss={Inc:0.000000,Out:0.000000}, Choke={Inc:0.000000,Out:0.000000}, ConnectionTime={686.566711 seconds}, GameTime={427.250000 seconds}

Usually when people get banned for Autoshoot alone, it's because they are legit cheating.
However, I have a suspicion that due to L4D and L4D2's lower tickrate (30 ticks per second), that autoshoot detections might not be stable for those games.

Would you be able to download a AHK script and use some sort of spam shoot script, and test if that causes some false detections?
I somehow feel like autoshoot isn't stable on such lower tickrates.

Anyway, when it comes to your issue of NoLerp... It seems like you and some other person where having issues with it, and I suspect it might be because of server's interp settings...
I haven't been able to reproduce the false positives, but it's something I wanna look more into before officially supporting L4D1.

Originally Posted by Merrill Here are the entire logs on him. Let me know what you think. I did notice his headshot percentage was very high even though his stats were poor. IP has been deleted. 2020/05/09 032:18 [Version 1.0.0] {Name: "Hobo" | SteamID: STEAM_0:1:59619110 | IP: } is suspected of using an aimbot (Detection: 2 | Delta: 0 | TotalDelta: 2 | Detected: Autoshoot). 2020/05/09 033:00 [Version 1.0.0] {Name: "Hobo" | SteamID: STEAM_0:1:59619110 | IP: } is suspected of using an aimbot (Detection: 3 | Delta: 0 | TotalDelta: 9 | Detected: Autoshoot). 2020/05/09 033:52 [Version 1.0.0] {Name: "Hobo" | SteamID: STEAM_0:1:59619110 | IP: } is suspected of using an aimbot (Detection: 4 | Delta: 0 | TotalDelta: 6 | Detected: Autoshoot). 2020/05/09 036:10 [Version 1.0.0] {Name: "Hobo" | SteamID: STEAM_0:1:59619110 | IP: } is suspected of using an aimbot (Detection: 5 | Delta: 0 | TotalDelta: 0 | Detected: Autoshoot). 2020/05/09 036:10 [Version 1.0.0] {Name: "Hobo" | SteamID: STEAM_0:1:59619110 | IP: } was banned for Aimbot.

Unlike what I said to finishlast, this seems like a valid ban. The tickrate in Day of Defeat is the same as Team Fortress 2 (66 ticks per second), so this is very likely a valid ban.
That said, in Team Fortress 2, AHK autoshoot scripts aren't used much, because they are useless in that game.
I haven't played Day of Defeat in a long time, but afaik, autoshoot scripts (AHK scripts that spam mouse1) are actually useful for some weapons.

Would be you able and willing to test that? Just to make sure.
Also, Little Anti-Cheat only detects autoshoot if you kill someone with it.
I suspect Lilac won't detect autoshoot from AHK in DoD, but might be wise to test anyway.

[SnowHP]

Originally Posted by J_Tanzanite Hmm, it seems like you have all the right plugins. But I suspect the issue may lie in your configuration of Sourcebans++ Tho, I've never used Sourcebans++ before. Do you have any other plugins, like SMAC, which do accurately ban throuh SB++ and list the bans officially?

No sir

[J_Tanzanite]

Originally Posted by SnowHP No sir

Alright, that makes things a little harder.
So, here's something you can do that might make it a little easier to find out what the issue is.

1. Install this plugin on your server.
2. Type "sm plugins load sbpp_test.smx" into your server console.
3. Write "sbpp_test_me" in chat.

The last step will attempt to ban you for 1 minute through sourcebans++.
If you get the message "Sourcebans++ wasn't detected to be installed." in chat, that means sourcebans++ isn't detectable by other plugins, and might suggest that sourcebans++ wasn't installed correctly.

If you don't get banned for 1 minute and you don't get any reply in the chat, that means that sourcebans++ is installed on the server, but sourcebans++ is unable to ban you... There should be some errors in the server console should this happen.
Those errors should help guide you to what the exact issue is.

Unfortunately, I've never used sourcebans++ before, but I would think the errors would be helpful at pinpointing a configuration issue if that is the problem.


Here's the sourcecode of this test plugin:

#include <sourcemod>
#include <sourcebanspp>

bool sourcebans_exist = false;

public void OnAllPluginsLoaded()
{
	sourcebans_exist = LibraryExists("sourcebans++");
}

public void OnLibraryAdded(const char []name)
{
	if (StrEqual(name, "sourcebans++"))
		sourcebans_exist = true;
}

public void OnLibraryRemoved(const char []name)
{
	if (StrEqual(name, "sourcebans++"))
		sourcebans_exist = false;
}

public Action OnClientSayCommand(int client, const char[] command, const char[] sArgs)
{
	if (StrEqual(sArgs, "sbpp_test_me", false)) {
		if (sourcebans_exist == false)
			PrintToChat(client, "Sourcebans++ wasn't detected to be installed.");
		else
			SBPP_BanPlayer(0, client, 1, "A test ban for 1 minute.");

		return Plugin_Stop;
	}

	return Plugin_Continue;
}

[Spyrek]

There is a lot of bhop bans on my servers so I wonder how many of them is accurate. Do you have any complaints from legit players?

[J_Tanzanite]

Originally Posted by Spyrek There is a lot of bhop bans on my servers so I wonder how many of them is accurate. Do you have any complaints from legit players?

I haven't had any complaints yet, but there was one Korean dude earlier on in this thread who was complaining about his friend being legit and having gotten falsely banned.
But he kept changing his story on whether his friend used scripts or not, and he wasn't able to give any reproducible steps on how to trigger a false ban... And since he wasn't the owner of the server, he couldn't exactly share any logs either...

Besides that, no. Not yet.

As for my own experience of having used this...
In earlier versions of Lilac, it wouldn't ban players instantly, it would silently ban hackers, but delay kicking them for about 45 seconds to 2 minutes. Just so if they were using more than just bhop (or any other type of cheat), they would have time to use other types of cheats, which could often be seen in the logs.
I wrote Lilac nearly two years ago and used Lilac for aprox a year and a half? (Can't remember), and in my time having used this, I haven't had any problems with bhop. And nearly all cases where players were banned for bhop, they were using other things as well, such as aimbot and NoLerp.

Funny enough, most cheaters I've ever detected were using bhop, and were detected of using such.
I've had a look at other server owner's sourcebans list, and seems like my observation is the same as on theirs. Bhop bans are the most common, probably because bhop is used a lot by cheaters.

This is not to say that there cannot be false positives, nothing in this world is perfect.
That said, the likelyhood of getting false bans for Bhop should be very low. Unless there is a bug ofc.

One thing I've seen time and time again when it comes to Bhop bans is that the most common values cheaters get caught with, is:
Jumps: 5-6 (sometimes 7) | Bhops: 5
and
Jumps: 10-11 | Bhops 5

I explained a bit more about those numbers here: https://forums.alliedmods.net/showpo...8&postcount=32

If you ever have any concerns regarding any ban, don't feel shy asking me about it on this forum.
I'll take a look whenever I have time.

[Spyrek]

Originally Posted by J_Tanzanite I haven't had any complaints yet, but there was one Korean dude earlier on in this thread who was complaining about his friend being legit and having gotten falsely banned. But he kept changing his story on whether his friend used scripts or not, and he wasn't able to give any reproducible steps on how to trigger a false ban... And since he wasn't the owner of the server, he couldn't exactly share any logs either... Besides that, no. Not yet. As for my own experience of having used this... In earlier versions of Lilac, it wouldn't ban players instantly, it would silently ban hackers, but delay kicking them for about 45 seconds to 2 minutes. Just so if they were using more than just bhop (or any other type of cheat), they would have time to use other types of cheats, which could often be seen in the logs. I wrote Lilac nearly two years ago and used Lilac for aprox a year and a half? (Can't remember), and in my time having used this, I haven't had any problems with bhop. And nearly all cases where players were banned for bhop, they were using other things as well, such as aimbot and NoLerp. Funny enough, most cheaters I've ever detected were using bhop, and were detected of using such. I've had a look at other server owner's sourcebans list, and seems like my observation is the same as on theirs. Bhop bans are the most common, probably because bhop is used a lot by cheaters. This is not to say that there cannot be false positives, nothing in this world is perfect. That said, the likelyhood of getting false bans for Bhop should be very low. Unless there is a bug ofc. One thing I've seen time and time again when it comes to Bhop bans is that the most common values cheaters get caught with, is: Jumps: 5-6 (sometimes 7) | Bhops: 5 and Jumps: 10-11 | Bhops 5 I explained a bit more about those numbers here: https://forums.alliedmods.net/showpo...8&postcount=32 If you ever have any concerns regarding any ban, don't feel shy asking me about it on this forum. I'll take a look whenever I have time.

Thank you for detailed description. I just checked logs and most of the bhop bans looks valid, but this one player seems to be different:

was detected and banned for Bhop (Jumps Presses: 12 | Bhops: 5)
was detected and banned for Bhop (Jumps Presses: 13 | Bhops: 5)

Other players get banned after 6,7,8 jump presses and 5 bhops.
What do you think? Maybe the bhop detection sensitivity should be lowered?

[J_Tanzanite]

Originally Posted by Spyrek Thank you for detailed description. I just checked logs and most of the bhop bans looks valid, but this one player seems to be different: was detected and banned for Bhop (Jumps Presses: 12 | Bhops: 5) was detected and banned for Bhop (Jumps Presses: 13 | Bhops: 5) Other players get banned after 6,7,8 jump presses and 5 bhops. What do you think? Maybe the bhop detection sensitivity should be lowered?

They're valid as well.
Bhop sensitivity is fine as is, but there are two modes which you can set in the ConVar lilac_bhop:
1: Simplistic.
2: Advanced.

Simplistic will ban cheaters on their 10th Bhop regardless of jump count.
Advanced will ban on the 5th bhop, if the jump count is lower than 15, only if the jump count is higher will it ban on the 10th Bhop.

Like I mentioned in my older post, some cheats will attempt to bypass SMAC's Bhop detection by jumping twice (once on the ground and once in the air).
However, cheaters don't always just hold space down, I should know since I used to cheat back in the day.
This is why the min value for jump count in Advanced mode is 15 and not 10, in order to have some leeway.

Like I said, the most common values you'll end up seeing is 5 to 7 and 10 to 11. However, those are just the most common values, jump count values such as 12, 13 or even 14 can happen as well, and are still valid bans.

As it currently stands, the Advanced mode is the default mode, and there haven't been issues with it.
That said, if you feel more comfortable with banning on the 10th bhop instead, just change "lilac_bhop" to 1 (simplistic mode).
Just note that it isn't necessary to do so, and simplistic mode will catch fewer cheaters and it will take longer. Most cheaters who bhop stop at around 7-8 in my testing, they may later on in games reach their 10th bhop and get banned, but it takes way longer and isn't always a given.

[freak.exe_uLow]

Respect that you offer something like this here for free and support something like this, I have taken over the German translation and will look in here from time to time.

[FreezerPT]

Your plugin its not working on CS Source I have a friend and I try to install it on his server and cfg and log dont appers