http://dbd.game/killswitch
This is the best technical change you can make to this game.
THIS. MOVING GAME LOGIC TO THE SERVER. THANK YOU. FINALLY BASIC NETWORKING. LOVE IT. MORE OF THIS. MOVE ALL GAME LOGIC AWAY FROM THE CLIENT SO IT CAN'T BE MANIPULATED.
Comments
-
Yeah, one thing that always irked me in DBD when I saw cheaters on Youtube or streaming platforms is the huge amount of control they have over the match and thats related to client sided validations.
Its time a lot of things get server validated too altough its going to be a rough process because bugs and inconsistencies will appear until they fix them again.
0 -
Moving all game logic to the server is not feasible. That is an insane amount of effort for the server to handle. That said, checks here and there are fully viable.
0 -
Uh... dude sorry to burst your bubble but that's how games work. Look at CSGO for example. It's possible. It's not insane. It's just expensive.
6 -
First of all, Valve is a multi-billion dollar company. BHVR Interactive net worth is estimated ~$100-300 million. Making checks for literally every single thing is a gargantuan demand and wasted extraneous effort in most cases.
Second of all, VAC is literally client-side and server-side both.
2 -
The cheats in DBD that are an issue are due to game logic being on the client. I even remember a Valve talk about cheating and they were like "yeah speedhacking was super easy to fix because it's completely in our court compared to wallhacking or aimbots".
I am not asking them to make their own anti cheat on server and client side. I'm asking them to switch from glorified peer-to-peer like a normal game dev.
4 -
Oh, thank god. I've been banging on about how insane it is that the game doesn't have any server-side checks to detect when weird stuff is going on. This and the auto-game-end after EGC times out are fantastic moves and I'm very glad to see them.
3 -
"MOVE ALL GAME LOGIC AWAY FROM THE CLIENT" is not realistic. Even in the Valve example, some things are checked server-side and other things are checked client-side. There are zero complex games that are 100% server-side validated I am aware of. If anyone knows of any, I’d be interested to learn of them.
1 -
I dunno,99% of the game logic at the least can be moved to the server. It shouldn't just take your perks,addons and even basic location at face value for what,4 years now that we had "Dedicated Servers".
1 -
They're definitely going in the right direction. I hope they consider getting better servers as well.
0 -
Why is this the thing you gotta nit pick at?
Just be happy its being worked on. That's the main point of this post.
1 -
Respectfully, there's no excuse for the game being so client-sided that hackers can force you to buy DLC on Steam.
2 -
I don’t know how much of the game can or can’t be handled server side, but I think we all agree that the current version doesn’t have enough server side validations. Clients shouldn’t be able to tell survivors “I’m flying and all the gens are done and this other player is dead and the game is going to continue past endgame collapse”. Yeah, some things presumably need to be handled on the client side, but there are a lot of things that shouldn’t.
And yes, it’s a major development task to switch these things over to server side validation, but the devs apparently recognize that it’s actually a necessary investment they’re going to have to make in the game. This is high priority item for them.
1 -
??? I am happy it’s being worked on. I’m simply saying moving literally everything to server is not realistic. More things can and should be moved to server-side where possible.
Did I ever say otherwise? No.
I agree that more things should be validated server-end. I am pointing out that expecting everything to be server-end is unrealistic. I think that making more things server-validated where possible should be done even though it is a lot of work.
2 -
I doubt this is of any high priority for BHVR, since it seems they are taking months just for something as basic as reducing the server time to 2h to 1h lol... and in the end, adding server-side validation would only address the obvious hackers, which are the least annoying ones. This is neither going to annoy subtle hackers (WH, 2% speed boost, auto DH etc.), nor stream snipers, nor hackers finding exploits that prevent the game to progress. The streamers are not complaining about people flying everywhere they are complaining about people inserting in their lobbies and subtly ruining their streaks.
Making more calculations client-side is fixing the least annoying part of hacking at a very expensive cost (create more bugs and lag possibilities for 90% of the playerbase who are not exposed to cheating). Remember when the server would lag and move you backwards every 10 minutes? That's the type of issues you'd create with server-side logic.
0 -
I don't remember ever having rubber banding to that extent, no.
And actually the streamers do complain about people flying everywhere in addition to the complaints about stream sniping and the game being taken hostage. The latter two complaints are more serious but they do specifically explicitly complain about the other cheats as well, both blatant and subtle.
Finally you're confusing something taking a while to program with not being a high development priority.
0 -
Reducing the server uptime from 2 hours to 1, doesn't sound like something that really takes a lots of time and resources to implement... and for that measure to be taken, multiple top killer streamers had to threaten to stop playing. In the mean time, we get a complete Mori rework that most people seem to already hate and literally nobody asked for. Idk, looks like a priority problem to me.
I am pretty sure that BHVR does not care about cheaters. It creates such an amount of technical problems to address it, for such an extremely minor part of the playerbase, that it's simply not worth. They just realized that cheating the new trending complaint on socials and so they published a bit of PR text to calm the situation.
Coincidentally, yesterday Angrypug was stream sniped by 2 obvious "flying" cheaters, and he didn't seem to mind it too much. Please watch the game it was quite entertaining:
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1599051075?t=02h02m07s
Now, do you think BHVR should invest time and effort to fix that type of games, so that these 2 Megs will now use less detectable cheats like WH + 2% movement boost?
In fact, Pug explicitly said towards the end of the game that cheating should not be a priority and that top streamers are bitching about issues that do not affect the rest of the playerbase, and that he can't sympathize as these streamers themselves create as many problems as cheaters by promoting unhealthy tryhard playstyles with their constant 50-win streaks attempts.
0 -
- The server uptime change was just an example of one of the changes they're working on. It's apparently being implemented as part of a larger package of changes in Q4.
- They do care about cheaters, if they didn't they wouldn't be devoting resources to constantly banning them and to the anti-cheat server side changes they're working on.
- Yes, Behaviour is right to devote resources to detecting client side cheats both blatant and subtle. And it sounds like Pug is blaming the victims of cheating for the cheaters' bad behaviour.
0 -
A change like server uptime reduction has no reason to wait until Q4. Streamers are being held hostage right now. Hacking is a game of cat and mouse. After they push a batch of changes, the hackers will find a new exploit in 1 week. If they need to wait a quarter every time they want to update the anti-cheat, that means streamers can play 1 week every 3 months.
In an ideal world, your bullets would make sense. In the real world, things like WH, movement boost and auto-DH are straight up impossible to prevent (they are just flaws in UE). Experimentally, we've only seen the DBD cheating situation get worse month after month despite the measures that were implemented, streamers are being targeted by exploits that have been existing for years, and in the mean time, hackers seem to like the confrontation with the developers more and more (I can't see any reason to hold streamers publicly on stream except to taunt the developers). I saw a few weeks ago someone on the forums share a very concerning video of cheater playing with name "c_spawnBot()" and actually managing to spawn bots in the game, which to me seems to indicate that hackers can now run code server-side, so by the time the new server-side counter-measures will be implemented, hackers will have compromised the server and there will be a whole variety of new obvious cheats.
0 -
Err... no. It's trivial for the server to manage.
0 -
This is probably for the best.
0 -
It's not that they can run code server side. It's just that their back-end is that ######### bad. You ask the servers to spawn a bot and they just go "seems good"
0 -
Rainbow Six Siege, enjoy your unplayable games
0 -
What?
0 -
They wouldn't name themselves c_spawnbot() though.
0 -
That doesnt sound server side. That's just BHVR code. When the Ghostface Build got accidentally released by BHVR you could spawn in anything. I doubt much has changed since then and hackers 100% have access to that.
0 -
Well actually - it's only wallhacks and aimbots we can't prevent effectively.
Speed hacks though? Literally just don't blindly trust the client. The client tells the server their inputs,server responds whether or not that movement is valid. Client compensates with a bit of prediction to account for latency..
You know...like any normal game.
0 -
Not sure about this one tbh but collisions seem to be handled server-side, so there must be a reason why they don't do validation for regular trajectories, and I guess that's to avoid rubberbanding.
0
