sv_cheat log - are they cheating ?

[TALON1973]

[06.27.2006 05:32:16] VIOLATION (GAME INTEGRITY) #20004: ^1[^7MINE^1]^7E^1r^7-MeNDa (slot #7) Violation (GAME INTEGRITY) #20004 [8c0540336a6299184baf9f7366019564(?) 83.165.6.85:27960]

[06.27.2006 05:32:44] VIOLATION (GAME INTEGRITY) #20004: ^1[^7MINE^1]^7c^1i^7lmor (slot #8) Violation (GAME INTEGRITY) #20004 [06e98b6e6f062ef1a853c12bf14fe4c3(?) 83.165.4.203:27960]

 

 

flashing up all over the place in the logs lol. are they cheating ???

 

also

 

[06.25.2006 00:01:58] VIOLATION (PB INTEGRITY) #10006: ^0-=(^2[^7T^2]^0)=-^2E^7xecution (slot #2) Technical Violation: Failed PunkBuster Integrity Check [f38166c510a15076c18dbecf40b93a23(VALID:199) 84.217.72.154:39583]

[06.25.2006 00:09:31] VIOLATION (PB INTEGRITY) #10006: ^0-=(^2[^7T^2]^0)=-^2E^7xecution (slot #2) Technical Violation: Failed PunkBuster Integrity Check [f38166c510a15076c18dbecf40b93a23(?) 84.217.72.154:39583]

][06.23.2006 02:22:23] VIOLATION (PB INTEGRITY) #10006: ^a*^2m^3a^8r^4k ^lc^hz^a* (slot #3) Technical Violation: Failed PunkBuster Integrity Check [5c91db5f9dff310b8990f3c1febc2af9(?) 62.240.166.134:27960

[06.26.2006 03:41:11] VIOLATION (CVAR) #9001: ^4||^3>>^7J23^2*^7[^1PL^7]^3<<^4 (slot #2) Cvar cl_timenudge = 1 [0f5a94c9d4b19e73bae805cf39cff907(?) 62.93.41.71:27960]

 

 

what's this one ? :-

 

[06.24.2006 01:07:16] VIOLATION (CVAR) #9001: ^7*^4=^7DCM^4=^7*^4k^7I^4ck (slot #6) Cvar r_picmip = 3.000000 [737f9a6c30c82dbef9d5a7406796eb0e(VALID:475) 82.11.137.251:27960]

Edited June 26, 2006 by *=DCM=*TALON1973

[alfdoh]

No. At least it is not proven.

This only means, punkbuster can't verify everything is ok. This can be caused by connection problems or a crashed game or similar things ...

[**DRC**Sippenhaft]

Cvar cl_timenudge = 1

 

pb_sv_cvar cl_timenudge

Timenudge can be unpredictable when set positive or too much negative. In theory should not have any affect upon how they appear on other player's screens or indeed the server, but no reason in any case to have this cvar set to something outside -50 to 0. See Alternate Fire's Unlagged FAQ to clear up some misgivings about timenudge, if you want to take their word for it. Upset Chaps also describes timenudge as "client side prediction", with no hint that this setting can affect other players in any way. Excessive info (if you're inclined to presume it is remotely accurate) on timenudge can also be found in this document which at first glance appears to claim to all be written by arQon, but on closer inspection it seems only the lower part is and that the top part is someone else's interpretation based on that. Going on the Unlagged FAQ, allowing -30 to 0 actually seems most sensible use for tweakers, but there doesnt seem to be any real issues with -50 to 0 either.

However, before you get lost in the myrad of conflicting crap about timenudge, be aware that in ET the norm is for servers to enable antilag coding. This coding compensates for the player's ping, and does it well. Although the way it works is not particularily significant, only how effective is significant, I am led to beleive that whereas normally it would assume all actions are taking place at the moment it is performing the relevant calculations, it instead calculates based upon the assumption that data it receives is at least "ping" duration late.

If you bothered to read anything about timenudge, you've probably realised Antilag makes "tn" somewhat redundant. Players should not use timenudge on antilag servers, as there would be timenudge prediction on top of the ping compensation of antilag. Combine this with the widespread perception (prejudice?) that timenudge can be used to cause the player to warp in a matter difficult to shoot at -- a perception that conveniently ignores the fact that any player is more likely to use timenudge as a result of a poor 'net connection, rather than to cause one -- and the suggestion is therefore to restrict this cvar to equalling nil. However, were antilag coding be not used, the recommendation switches to -50 to 0 (even though players are perhaps best to confine themselves to between -30 and 0), or just go with whatever results in the least whines like everywhere else.

Note: connection setting restrictions are possibly unnecessary for servers running ETPro with b_antiwarp 1. These restrictions should not cause any negative side effects however. Further, a large portion of players perceive issues with low connection settings, so it's probably a good idea to leave them on even if just to hedge your bets, satisfy ignorance or whatever.

((Setting on my server is pb_sv_cvar "cl_timenudge" IN -20 0))

 

Cvar r_picmip = 3.000000

pb_sv_cvar r_picmic
pb_sv_cvar r_gamma
pb_sv_cvar r_intensity
pb_sv_cvar r_overbrightbits
pb_sv_cvar r_mapoverbrightbits

These settings are relics of cvar restrictions from RTCW, and are either cheat-protected or hardcoded within these ranges. There is a case (or more usually a flamewar thread) to be made for setting them in more restrictive ranges, but this is 100% opinion based; the only objective judgement is that there is no exploit associated with these cvars.

In my personal opinion, the ranges for these cvars as restricted in the game engine do well to balance the arguments about tweaking for performance vs. advantage; these cvars are not an issue like they were in RTCW. It's worth noting that more can be done to tweak brightness using external programs - ones that are popular for bona fide reasons.

As noted under other cvar restrictions which are recommended on this page, there are hacks which bypass the game's cvar cheat-protection, but these cvars are hardly of any concern compared to other cheat-protected cvars. That said, it should be noted that some of these cvars are arguably more suspect than others, and it is a call of judgement and personal preference. 

Hence, I consider adding these cvars to the PB restriction as pointless unless you want to be more restrictive, and even then I consider there being dubious merit in doing so.

((My settings pb_sv_cvar "r_picmip" IN 0 3))

 

Hope that clears things up for ya! :blink: :D

[TALON1973]

lol....erm................no

[alfdoh]

There are many standard cvars responsible for setting loads of stuff in the game.

Examples are rate, cl_maxpackets, cl_timenudge, r_picmic, r_mapoverbrightbits, .. and so on.

 

Some of the standard cvars can have an effect that gives the player an advantage (e.g. see better, sometimes even through walls; killing easier; ...). In order to force all players to have a similar configured game (i.e. nobody gets an advantage), those cvars are restricted to have certain values.

 

However, violations regarding disallowed standard cvar settings do NOT lead to a ban.

 

 

It is a different story with cheat related cvars. Those cvars are used to configure a cheat, i.e. who to aim at, enabling wallhack, ... There is no reason why you should have those cvars in your game config, when you do not or did not cheat. So violations regarding those cvars lead to a ban, as it is enough proof that you at least hacked once.

[**DRC**Sippenhaft]

Just a note also about your CHEAT.LOG

 

You will probably see alot of the following by players useing LINUX! This is a big issue right now with PB...

[06.28.2006 15:35:10] VIOLATION (GAME INTEGRITY) #20004: * (slot #8) Violation (GAME INTEGRITY) #20004 [*(?) *]
[06.28.2006 15:35:51] VIOLATION (GAME INTEGRITY) #20004: *(slot #3) Violation (GAME INTEGRITY) #20004 [*(?) *]
[06.28.2006 15:35:58] VIOLATION (GAME INTEGRITY) #20004: ^8 (slot #8) Violation (GAME INTEGRITY) #20004 [*8(?) *]
[06.28.2006 15:36:27] VIOLATION (GAME INTEGRITY) #20004: * (slot #3) Violation (GAME INTEGRITY) #20004 [**]
[06.28.2006 15:36:53] VIOLATION (GAME INTEGRITY) #20004: ^*(slot #8) Violation (GAME INTEGRITY) #20004 [*(?) *]
[06.28.2006 15:37:22] VIOLATION (GAME INTEGRITY) #20004: ^*(slot #3) Violation (GAME INTEGRITY) #20004 [*0(?) *]

But Like they said above, if you see the CVAR Violation and it contains one of the nasty terms (ie cheat name) in your checks then it could be an issue.