The latter is more likely. Ammo count can change so quickly that it wouldn't be worth it to keep it in constant sync with a server. The servers might track your total ammo each time you reload though.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Apparently the Division on PC has a fatal flaw in it's code that allows easy cheating
- Thread starter Hello? This is Hailun!
- Start date
stan423321
Member
A game server - especially for something like Division - is a relatively big program, and under the "complete lunacy at Ubisoft" scenario (no one is going to cheat, let's save on servers checking stuff) they have no good place in the server code to put those checks in. Thus, they'd have to make one. And they could have counted on it not being present. BF4 does something like this, it specifically skips some server-side checks so that the servers use less processing power.
Sword Of Doom
Member
Sounds like something fundamental to how the game works though
Gtagentleman
Member
Betas are the new demos, look at Battlefront.
Nothing from the beta got fixed in the final game.
KeyChainDude
Member
Sucks for people on PC. At least I'm mostly safe for now playing on the PS4.
Do you guys think they might delay the PC version because of this? Maybe cancel current preorders? This looks like it could spawn some shitstorm similar to Batman Arkham Knight PC.
Do you guys think they might delay the PC version because of this? Maybe cancel current preorders? This looks like it could spawn some shitstorm similar to Batman Arkham Knight PC.
Could this possibly be something that they've just disabled during beta to prevent mass data incoming and allow players to test the content? A dev on Twitter mentioned AI was dumbed down and various scenarios were disabled during the beta to focus test the actual content. Who knows I guess.
I've still got my order a tie as it seems beyond dumb just to let this go through with the DZ being such a large part of the game.
I've still got my order a tie as it seems beyond dumb just to let this go through with the DZ being such a large part of the game.
robertlebrone
Member
I'm not concerned. This will be squared away by launch. These are exactly the types of things betas are made to address. So I'm glad all these invisible, super-speed, infinite ammo players are running around. The game needs to work on March 8th. I couldn't care less about Jan 31st.
tearsintherain
Member
It will not. Ubisoft is not competent at multiplayer competitive games and fixing this kind of problem can take weeks or months and de-stabilize your entire code base, its not something they can just slap in. For comparison FF14 (an MMO) had the exact same problem at launch and it took around 6 months for them to fix it. GTA5 has the same problem and they haven't even tried to fix it.
R6 Siege for PC has the exact same problem, released less than 2 months ago by Ubisoft, and has tons and tons of players cheating online with no repercussions.
If you like the division you should buy it on console where cheating is currently impossible (can't edit memory/files on ps4/xbone), on PC you are just going to regret paying for it.
The smart fix by Ubisoft would be to pool reported cheaters into their own seperate DZ servers, so cheaters only play with other cheaters. Titanfall did this and it was brilliant.
Oublieux
Member
Part of the reason companies do multiplayer betas is to test whether or not the servers can handle the load. By putting some important stats client-side (I.E. your PC), they've effectively not only made hacking easier but also reduced the amount of information their servers have to handle at once. A little backwards, in my opinion.
I am not going to judge since it is technically a beta, but I would find this worrying as the network infrastructure in a video game is such a fundamental part of an online experience.
Revolutionary
Member
Wouldn't that be everyone? The DZ is the endgame, no?
Chris Murphy
Member
Server side checking is just turned off for the beta to help on server load while they test stuff. This is a proper beta where they are testing their servers on a small scale, lots of stuff has been disabled.
There will surely be exploits found by hackers that will be patched out but something this simple and obvious is intentional. Ubisoft will have their best networking guys on this thing, do you guys really think they are that inept?
There will surely be exploits found by hackers that will be patched out but something this simple and obvious is intentional. Ubisoft will have their best networking guys on this thing, do you guys really think they are that inept?
stan423321
Member
Eeeeyup. If this was the thing that used to be called beta (a pre-deadline release candidate) cutting things of for testing would be considered nonsense. They're supposed to test how the whole thing works at launch, so the closer the thing is to, you know, actual conditions at launch (with a possible exception of scale, but even that is debatable), the better.
Raging Spaniard
If they are Dutch, upright and breathing they are more racist than your favorite player
Not necessarily, this could be something thats hardcoded or something that, of changed, could break the game for months.
Betas are for balancing purposes and general bugs, not something this fucking egregious and idiotic.
robertlebrone
Member
I'll worry about the state of the game when it releases. Just my 2 cents. If needed I'll just wait it out or get a refund. I have no interest in playing this game on consoles.
texhnolyze
Banned
Ok, that's it. Goodbye to pre-order from me.
Evolution of Metal
Member
People burying the game 40 days before it launches. Nobody knows if this issue is going to be in the final game, nor how long it would take to solve this problem. I think you should hold your horses before judging the game, at least until the last Beta test or the final version.
Fixed it for you. No game developer should do anything else but ban cheaters/hackers.
Edit: Also if you finished reading that reddit post: the mastermind of this exploit states that Ubisoft can easily fix it. So take that into account before you buy into Internet's overreaction.
Fixed it for you. No game developer should do anything else but ban cheaters/hackers.
Edit: Also if you finished reading that reddit post: the mastermind of this exploit states that Ubisoft can easily fix it. So take that into account before you buy into Internet's overreaction.
Darryl M R
Member
Sorry that PC players might have to deal with this, but I hope they can fix this (or I hope that they left this in the Beta build on purpose).
I'm assuming the consoles will not have this issue but could be open to it as the generation ages.
I'm assuming the consoles will not have this issue but could be open to it as the generation ages.
If I remember correctly this is how a lot of the GTA5 online cheats worked at first. Maybe that had something to do with modded 360s though idk.
NullPointer
Member
Words to live by.
And also why I don't really believe this. Its too basic a mistake to make on a high profile always-online game with loot and PvP.
BennyBlanco
aka IMurRIVAL69
for half the price and double the framerate, i'll take my chances that they'll fix it
We don't know yet. DZ might just be the PvP end content for those wanting to play purely PvP, whereas there are rumours raids might be a thing.
stan423321
Member
Indeed, but holding your horses excludes pre-ordering. Agree? Disagree?
Do you have some sort of independent source confirming this? Because that would seal the fixing doubts as being reasonable.
Huge Succeeded
Banned
this reads like complete FUD to me. cheating in r6 is nothing like cheating here, its your usual aimbot/wallhack crap found basically anywhere. Rare enough that neither I nor the circle of people I play with have ever encountered cheaters beyond the already-fixed spawn killers. Google searches don't turn up anything close to what would appear to be a cheating epidemic. and anti-cheating measures have become stricter in that game over the last month.
Diablohead
Member
that's not exactly how it works, this netcode was designed this way and a day one patch might not be enough to completely secure the data without issues.
Projectjustice
Banned
WonkyPanda
Member
Great point.
Cheating kinda comes with PC gaming territory when game in question is online game with any kind PvP element. Cheating in PC MP game isn't actually news. Cheating like this where server blindly trusts client data can be harder to tackle, but shouldn't be impossible. Right?
So let's say that they find ways to tackle this among other possible cheats, have decent anti-cheat solutions in place and maintain them properly I don't see this game getting overrun by hordes of cheaters. I don't know what real state of R6 Siege is, I hear everyone and their mother has cheats in it, but even when BF4 was allegedly full of cheaters I saw maybe one in so many months.
Just out of curiosity. Do people feel that alleged state of R6 Siege and cheating is because of Ubisoft doesn't care and is actively interfering with devs or are devs just seen as not up to the task?
So let's say that they find ways to tackle this among other possible cheats, have decent anti-cheat solutions in place and maintain them properly I don't see this game getting overrun by hordes of cheaters. I don't know what real state of R6 Siege is, I hear everyone and their mother has cheats in it, but even when BF4 was allegedly full of cheaters I saw maybe one in so many months.
Just out of curiosity. Do people feel that alleged state of R6 Siege and cheating is because of Ubisoft doesn't care and is actively interfering with devs or are devs just seen as not up to the task?
Portugeezer
Member
A beta would be a good time to test the servers. They should enable it during beta.
littlebigman
Member
Even as someone who never plays online games, this is hilarious. Allowing players to literally rewrite the rules any way they like is completely ridiculous in a competitive game. This will become a hacker-infested shitshow almost immediately if it launches in this state.
JHoNNy1OoO
Member
With the amount of griefing possible in this game I imagine it is going to be a HUGE target for cheating. The easiest place to cheat is of course PC so if you value an "even field" better get it on console.
Just the way it is.
Just the way it is.
Psychoward
Banned
He's urging people not to cancel their pre-orders? Sure it might be fixed in release but why bother waiting to spend $60 to find out?
AFAIK the game doesn't have a significant discount (or even a discount at all) for pre-ordering so why the hell would you even pre-order in the first place let alone keep it after this?
Ugh
AFAIK the game doesn't have a significant discount (or even a discount at all) for pre-ordering so why the hell would you even pre-order in the first place let alone keep it after this?
Ugh
WonkyPanda
Member
Well, 20% GCU with $10 gift card or 20% off at Amazon is decent.
Evolution of Metal
Member
Or 31 Euro on cdkeys... Though it is not going to go above 40 Euros, that would be the worst case scenario.
This is why i absolutely always play any kind of multiplayer games on consoles...I gave up on online gaming with my PC rig eons ago....it's simply not worth the trouble with the amount of cheaters with PC gaming. Sucks but at least there are other options. This is why owning at least one console is essential for any gamer.
I never understood the fun of cheating with online gaming, it boggles my mind. I'll never understand it.
I never understood the fun of cheating with online gaming, it boggles my mind. I'll never understand it.
BennyBlanco
aka IMurRIVAL69
http://www.cdkeys.com/pc/games/tom-clancy-s-the-division-pc-cd-key-uplay
Was like $30 earlier in the week.
I think that before people comment they should really understand the implication here.
In games, there's some stuff done client side, some stuff done server-side, and some stuff done server-side that's predicted in the client.
In modern games, when you're in a multiplayer match and you see another player, then aim and shoot, what happens is that your client will "predict" what's supposed to happen: reducing your ammo count by one, causing damage to the opponent (blood splatter, etc) and your client tells the server "i am here, and i hit this guy when he was here"
The server then figures out if that's "valid" by looking at it's version of the game state- as the server it should have the "real" version of said state and then sends updates to everyone as to how that state has changed. Note, that in modern predictive games this doesn't always mean that person A could shoot person B now, just that they could have X amount of time in the past based on that player's lag. There are ways to exploit this in massive lag scenarios but there's ways to fix that.
Note that this all still has the players' 'real' positions and ammo counts and health totals on the server. The client makes guesses as to what they are going to be, but defers to the server when the server updates them in such a way that's inaccurate.
Now, what happens if the *client* gets to decide everything? What if the client tells the server what position you're in, and the server decides that's true without verifying it? It just updates it's local (and everyone else's) gamestate that says you are in position x,y,z. This is how location hacks in World of Warcraft work- it's one of the things that the client has authority on. Note that you can't actually hack your inventory in WoW- you can hack your location to teleport to mining nodes but you can't just give yourself more minerals.
Now what if
a) *everything* was on the client
b) the server isn't even equipped to 'verify' any data.
c) the client can be externally changed and then update the server with that information? This is the part that makes me worried- CONSOLE games tend not to care as much bout this and can even go player-to-player with no server, because the ability to hack a networked modern console usually lower then the ability to do so on PC which is completey open.
Not saying all of this is true, mind you, but if it is, fixing it s a huge, major change in the network backend and rushing it out is only going to result in a buggy, unplayable mess. after all,you're going entirely from a system where game state data is player client based to one that's server based for all players, and the network overhead therein would be a difficult hurdle as well.
Now it's possible this was a testing switch that got left on and the game does support server validation. Hopefully that's the case.
In games, there's some stuff done client side, some stuff done server-side, and some stuff done server-side that's predicted in the client.
In modern games, when you're in a multiplayer match and you see another player, then aim and shoot, what happens is that your client will "predict" what's supposed to happen: reducing your ammo count by one, causing damage to the opponent (blood splatter, etc) and your client tells the server "i am here, and i hit this guy when he was here"
The server then figures out if that's "valid" by looking at it's version of the game state- as the server it should have the "real" version of said state and then sends updates to everyone as to how that state has changed. Note, that in modern predictive games this doesn't always mean that person A could shoot person B now, just that they could have X amount of time in the past based on that player's lag. There are ways to exploit this in massive lag scenarios but there's ways to fix that.
Note that this all still has the players' 'real' positions and ammo counts and health totals on the server. The client makes guesses as to what they are going to be, but defers to the server when the server updates them in such a way that's inaccurate.
Now, what happens if the *client* gets to decide everything? What if the client tells the server what position you're in, and the server decides that's true without verifying it? It just updates it's local (and everyone else's) gamestate that says you are in position x,y,z. This is how location hacks in World of Warcraft work- it's one of the things that the client has authority on. Note that you can't actually hack your inventory in WoW- you can hack your location to teleport to mining nodes but you can't just give yourself more minerals.
Now what if
a) *everything* was on the client
b) the server isn't even equipped to 'verify' any data.
c) the client can be externally changed and then update the server with that information? This is the part that makes me worried- CONSOLE games tend not to care as much bout this and can even go player-to-player with no server, because the ability to hack a networked modern console usually lower then the ability to do so on PC which is completey open.
Not saying all of this is true, mind you, but if it is, fixing it s a huge, major change in the network backend and rushing it out is only going to result in a buggy, unplayable mess. after all,you're going entirely from a system where game state data is player client based to one that's server based for all players, and the network overhead therein would be a difficult hurdle as well.
Now it's possible this was a testing switch that got left on and the game does support server validation. Hopefully that's the case.
Candescence
Member
So many people in denial. Depending on the source of the actual problem, this may be a fundamental thing that can't possibly be fixed before release. Client-based multiplayer is amateur shit, it's appealing that there are devs that still do it.
The Division is probably gonna be a mess on launch. Ubi gonna Ubi.
The Division is probably gonna be a mess on launch. Ubi gonna Ubi.
Oh so basically they turned them off to not stress the server......but with features turned off aren't actually testing features for large crowds....Therefor not actually test the servers
WAIT.....WHAT! That would be fucking stupid.
Wolf Akela
Member
Lol. From a dev point of view, this isnt something that can be fixed and tested in a month, unless the public beta is months behind master release. It's a serious design flaw. I have no idea why they went with this. It's probably more of a management issue. No sane senior would approve this.
Could also be major oversight as they took networking designs from console versions to PC, or just didn't have resources or want to design proper server side system for PC version. After all in console space devs don't need to worry about players tweaking their client side values with Notepad++
Love Deterrence
Member
who would play this on pc anyway, it's clearly best suited for microsoft xbox one
Could also be major oversight as they took networking designs from console versions to PC, or just didn't have resources or want to design proper server side system for PC version. After all in console space devs don't need to worry about players tweaking their client side values with Notepad++
Even on consoles you never let the client dictate anything, ever.
I'm glad that I'm not really into multiplayer games or I'd have a much harder time deciding where to play multiplatform games. A bunch of companies are keen to collect that PC port money without putting in the work to account for an open platform.
I thought The Division would be OK, though. Ubi seems to have spent a lot of time on the PC port.
I thought The Division would be OK, though. Ubi seems to have spent a lot of time on the PC port.