Should i Get MLGA?
Not simply because i want to dodge killers that play scummy, but just so i can play against said scummy killers and run them the whole game.
Comments
-
Lmao, would use mlga only for this exact reason0
-
Well why not
Even fogstreamers use and promote MLGA, so you should be good to go I guess.
EAC has no tools to detect it anyway...1 -
@Master said:
Well why not
Even fogstreamers use and promote MLGA, so you should be good to go I guess.
EAC has no tools to detect it anyway...Didn't the devs say thought that it's a use at your own risk? Last time i checked they said it was blacklisted or something like that.
2 -
@Detective_Jonathan said:
@Master said:
Well why not
Even fogstreamers use and promote MLGA, so you should be good to go I guess.
EAC has no tools to detect it anyway...Didn't the devs say thought that it's a use at your own risk? Last time i checked they said it was blacklisted or something like that.
It's not blacklisted, but it did get removed from the whitelist.
This means that, if EAC bans you for using it, Dead by Daylight won't help you with your ban.
EAC has stated that they won't ban for the use of MLGA.1 -
@Detective_Jonathan said:
@Master said:
Well why not
Even fogstreamers use and promote MLGA, so you should be good to go I guess.
EAC has no tools to detect it anyway...Didn't the devs say thought that it's a use at your own risk? Last time i checked they said it was blacklisted or something like that.
There only is a whitelist, not a blacklist.
In theory, its bannable but there are no tools to detect it and even officially supported streamers use and promote it. So.....?
0 -
What do you mean with "No tools to detect this"? EAC is constantly checking which programs are open and what is stored in RAM or not?Master said:@Detective_Jonathan said:
@Master said:
Well why not
Even fogstreamers use and promote MLGA, so you should be good to go I guess.
EAC has no tools to detect it anyway...Didn't the devs say thought that it's a use at your own risk? Last time i checked they said it was blacklisted or something like that.
There only is a whitelist, not a blacklist.
In theory, its bannable but there are no tools to detect it and even officially supported streamers use and promote it. So.....?
0 -
#MadLadDetective_Jonathan said:Not simply because i want to dodge killers that play scummy, but just so i can play against said scummy killers and run them the whole game.
0 -
@DwightsLifeMatters said:
What do you mean with "No tools to detect this"? EAC is constantly checking which programs are open and what is stored in RAM or not?
Would be tough to be consistent.
Simply renaming the program would be the easiest way to bypass EAC.
It is a open sourced JAVA app aswell which is going to make it even tougher.
0 -
I'm not an expert, but I'm pretty sure that renaming doesn't prevent EAC from recognising the program lolTheBean said:@DwightsLifeMatters said:
What do you mean with "No tools to detect this"? EAC is constantly checking which programs are open and what is stored in RAM or not?
Would be tough to be consistent.
Simply renaming the program would be the easiest way to bypass EAC.
It is a open sourced JAVA app aswell which is going to make it even tougher.
1 -
DwightsLifeMatters said:
I'm not an expert, but I'm pretty sure that renaming doesn't prevent EAC from recognising the program lolTheBean said:@DwightsLifeMatters said:
What do you mean with "No tools to detect this"? EAC is constantly checking which programs are open and what is stored in RAM or not?
Would be tough to be consistent.
Simply renaming the program would be the easiest way to bypass EAC.
It is a open sourced JAVA app aswell which is going to make it even tougher.
There's a bunch of techniques used in detecting hacks. Stuff like asking the OS for open handles to it's memory region and monitoring access to it. Or asking for access to the hardware accelerated rendering pipeline used by the game and scanning for certain rendering methods, like a common wall hack approach to just make player objects drawn with a box around them directly on the screen, ignoring depth calculations.
That's why you can't just smack together some hack or use CheatEngine or something stupid like that. You are effectively trying to find a way to access the game's data and execution/rendering while the OS is willing to tattle on every little process accessing it, and all the obvious stuff is already being watched.
An analogy: Whenever someone finds a new way in, anti-cheats start covering it. It's like hiring a guard to cover an entrance.
Of course, you have to let some people in. Steam and Discord overlay would like to work. But they're willing to walk through the front door and show their ID. They're confirmable safe stuff.
Not everyone has a fancy verified ID, though, so for programs like MLGA, anti-cheats watch where they go and what they do. If they spot anything fishy, they blow up the building, taking your game down with it and handing you a ban.
Generally speaking, stuff like MLGA is already detectable by them. They just know it's not dangerous so they don't care. The devs have previously given it their blessing, so that implies any extra information it gives about your lobby (like the Killer's identity) isn't considered cheating by their standards. So EAC has no reason to bother.
1 -
MLGA is a must imho. I personally blacklist all the nurse players.
0 -
@BillyIII said:
MLGA is a must imho. I personally blacklist all the nurse players.People like you are why i'm glad blacklisting will be impossible soon. You can't block DbD servers 😃
3 -
@Bbbrian2013 said:
@BillyIII said:
MLGA is a must imho. I personally blacklist all the nurse players.People like you are why i'm glad blacklisting will be impossible soon. You can't block DbD servers 😃
Yea i heard that you won't be able to block anyone once Dedicated servers come out.
2 -
@Detective_Jonathan said:
@Bbbrian2013 said:
@BillyIII said:
MLGA is a must imho. I personally blacklist all the nurse players.People like you are why i'm glad blacklisting will be impossible soon. You can't block DbD servers 😃
Yea i heard that you won't be able to block anyone once Dedicated servers come out.
Do you agree that it's lame to block killers because of who they want to play as/their skill level?
0 -
@Detective_Jonathan said:
Yea i heard that you won't be able to block anyone once Dedicated servers come out.MLGA tracks IPs and marks them as blocked / loved but when there is no P2P connection anymore, there's no way to tell who you're connected with.
Yes, MLGA is a good tool if you want to avoid blatant cheaters or toxic players but most Survivors abuse it for ridiculous reasons.
Play Nurse? Blocked!
Used a Mori? Blocked!
Used NOED? Blocked!
Tunnel / Camp? Blocked!
Dribbled DS? Blocked!
Slugged for 4k? Blocked!It's kinda pathetic but feel free to do whatever you want. I also use it, mainly to keep track of toxic SWFs (because you can't really block specific Survivors) so I just block all of them when they happened to be toxic after the match and then dodge them whenever I come across them (in any form, even when they're solo). I do the same with Killers, but only if they're toxic (insulting and harassing), not for their playstyles.
0 -
@Detective_Jonathan said:
@Bbbrian2013 said:
@BillyIII said:
MLGA is a must imho. I personally blacklist all the nurse players.People like you are why i'm glad blacklisting will be impossible soon. You can't block DbD servers 😃
Yea i heard that you won't be able to block anyone once Dedicated servers come out.
Blocking wont be a thing even when dedicated servers are out. The devs confirmed that it was the blocking feature that caused the removal from the whitelist
0 -
Both sides use it and both sides are going to have to learn to live without it once the dedicated servers come out because it won't work anymore.
0 -
Here we got the reason why MLGA isn't whitelisted anymore. Good job, thanks for nothing.BillyIII said:MLGA is a must imho. I personally blacklist all the nurse players.
1 -
@DwightsLifeMatters said:
I'm not an expert, but I'm pretty sure that renaming doesn't prevent EAC from recognising the program lol
... Sorry long post....
You make a program... That searches process... etc... You aren't looking for a particular signature. What sort of signature do you think you can look for?... In processes?... Now... Don't forget you'd need to scan the Java process space (this is where the tricky part would be.. detecting a java app running in the java space...)
What sort of information can you look at when you are scanning process looking for a program?
When you look at the Task Manager of Windows and see processes running... Do you see anything there that you could use to search and find a particular process without using any name? And also be the same across multiple machines running different versions of Windows.
Just changing the name, you change one of the biggest variables you have for finding a process that is running on your machine. Without the name... how are you going to know process A is "ABC APP" compared to process B? You can't look in their memory... You can pull up file details of what created the process... which... include the name of the file, etc. You might be able to generate some sort of hash based off the program itself. However, since it is Java, recompiling it would change that hash.
You could look at the types of libraries the process loads.... Then you might say... This app is loading the library that helps read network traffic. So you could mark that process as suspect. But do you know exactly what that program does?... Because you are told about a program called "MLGA" sniffs network traffic.... But you see no process by that name. You have hash that was made from the original complied program, but since the user recompiled, that hash is incorrect. Therefore you have no idea, MLGB is actually MLGA.
If you had any sort of app signature.... When that program gets recompiled because someone changed 1 line of code in the java app. Do you think the signature would be the same from the program compiled at an earlier date and time with different lines of code?....
There would be no way to consistently find the app running if the person using it had any java knowledge what so ever.
The only way EAC would have any sort of consistency on nailing MLGA, would be if MLGA wasn't Java but an actual Windows App. Also, if MLGA wasn't open sourced. Cause even recompiling the Windows App would change everything for it and make it impossible for EAC to find it.
EAC is only good if ALOT of people use the same program.
I hope this helps people understand why EAC will never be able to stop MLGA.
1 -
Thanks for the detailed informations, very very interesting to read that. Have you studied this?TheBean said:@DwightsLifeMatters said:
I'm not an expert, but I'm pretty sure that renaming doesn't prevent EAC from recognising the program lol
... Sorry long post....
You make a program... That searches process... etc... You aren't looking for a particular signature. What sort of signature do you think you can look for?... In processes?... Now... Don't forget you'd need to scan the Java process space (this is where the tricky part would be.. detecting a java app running in the java space...)
What sort of information can you look at when you are scanning process looking for a program?
When you look at the Task Manager of Windows and see processes running... Do you see anything there that you could use to search and find a particular process without using any name? And also be the same across multiple machines running different versions of Windows.
Just changing the name, you change one of the biggest variables you have for finding a process that is running on your machine. Without the name... how are you going to know process A is "ABC APP" compared to process B? You can't look in their memory... You can pull up file details of what created the process... which... include the name of the file, etc. You might be able to generate some sort of hash based off the program itself. However, since it is Java, recompiling it would change that hash.
You could look at the types of libraries the process loads.... Then you might say... This app is loading the library that helps read network traffic. So you could mark that process as suspect. But do you know exactly what that program does?... Because you are told about a program called "MLGA" sniffs network traffic.... But you see no process by that name. You have hash that was made from the original complied program, but since the user recompiled, that hash is incorrect. Therefore you have no idea, MLGB is actually MLGA.
If you had any sort of app signature.... When that program gets recompiled because someone changed 1 line of code in the java app. Do you think the signature would be the same from the program compiled at an earlier date and time with different lines of code?....
There would be no way to consistently find the app running if the person using it had any java knowledge what so ever.
The only way EAC would have any sort of consistency on nailing MLGA, would be if MLGA wasn't Java but an actual Windows App. Also, if MLGA wasn't open sourced. Cause even recompiling the Windows App would change everything for it and make it impossible for EAC to find it.
EAC is only good if ALOT of people use the same program.
I hope this helps people understand why EAC will never be able to stop MLGA.
Also, how about using AutoHotKey, would this apply aswell?0 -
@DwightsLifeMatters said:
Thanks for the detailed informations, very very interesting to read that. Have you studied this?
Also, how about using AutoHotKey, would this apply aswell?I get your asking cause of macro'ing....
There is many things EAC is watching as mentioned above. One thing they are watching is the Messaging being sent from Windows to DBD. Basically they monitor those messages to see "where" those messages are coming from.
So if you had 2 ways to perform macros... One using your mouse driver software and the other AutoHotKey.
AutoHotKey is an actual Window program that has a scripting language built in it to do whatever you programmed it to do. AutoHotKey itself probably rarely changes. EAC could monitor those changes and update itself fairly easy to keep up with it.
If you had a wiggle macro using AutoHotKey and you turned it on. AutoHotKey then sends those mouse / button presses through the Windows messaging system to DBD. EAC then see those messages in DBD and says... Where did they come from? EAC would be able to see those messages were injected by a 3rd Party app called.... "whatever".... Then it looks at the "whatever" program and marks it suspect and then tries to figure out what it is.... After awhile it could then flag it as a "hack" and bang.. banned.
Say if you used a macro through your mouse driver software for wiggle. Your mouse driver manufacture isn't going to design the app to have different ways to send windows messages based on if the button press was done through a macro or physically using the device. So when the driver sends in the wiggle presses to DBD, EAC says.. Where did those messages come from? Oh.. They came from the driver. Those are legit. Cause EAC isn't going to mark your mouse driver as suspect cause they could potentially ban 1000s of customers just for using a certain brand of mouse.
If AutoHotKey was a Java app... It would still have issues being seen cause it needs to send Window messages to DBD to facilitate the button presses of your macro. So even if someone did their own custom design of AutoHotKey, EAC would still see the messages coming from an external 3rd party program that isn't your keyboard or mouse driver. EAC would then probably start watching it and maybe even flag it as a "hack".
I hope that answers what you were looking for.
1 -
Thanks, very informative. You provided more information about that topic than any dev and mod did lolTheBean said:@DwightsLifeMatters said:
Thanks for the detailed informations, very very interesting to read that. Have you studied this?
Also, how about using AutoHotKey, would this apply aswell?I get your asking cause of macro'ing....
There is many things EAC is watching as mentioned above. One thing they are watching is the Messaging being sent from Windows to DBD. Basically they monitor those messages to see "where" those messages are coming from.
So if you had 2 ways to perform macros... One using your mouse driver software and the other AutoHotKey.
AutoHotKey is an actual Window program that has a scripting language built in it to do whatever you programmed it to do. AutoHotKey itself probably rarely changes. EAC could monitor those changes and update itself fairly easy to keep up with it.
If you had a wiggle macro using AutoHotKey and you turned it on. AutoHotKey then sends those mouse / button presses through the Windows messaging system to DBD. EAC then see those messages in DBD and says... Where did they come from? EAC would be able to see those messages were injected by a 3rd Party app called.... "whatever".... Then it looks at the "whatever" program and marks it suspect and then tries to figure out what it is.... After awhile it could then flag it as a "hack" and bang.. banned.
Say if you used a macro through your mouse driver software for wiggle. Your mouse driver manufacture isn't going to design the app to have different ways to send windows messages based on if the button press was done through a macro or physically using the device. So when the driver sends in the wiggle presses to DBD, EAC says.. Where did those messages come from? Oh.. They came from the driver. Those are legit. Cause EAC isn't going to mark your mouse driver as suspect cause they could potentially ban 1000s of customers just for using a certain brand of mouse.
If AutoHotKey was a Java app... It would still have issues being seen cause it needs to send Window messages to DBD to facilitate the button presses of your macro. So even if someone did their own custom design of AutoHotKey, EAC would still see the messages coming from an external 3rd party program that isn't your keyboard or mouse driver. EAC would then probably start watching it and maybe even flag it as a "hack".
I hope that answers what you were looking for.
Btw no offense mods, it's not your job. I find it just funny0
