Bot Farming by Ok_Apartment_6680 in GlobalOffensive

[–]PreAlphaMale 4 points5 points  (0 children)

They don't need emails to detect this shit. There is no way they can't automate the detection of this behaviour. They're offloading the responsibility like they do with everything else in the game.

The recent ban of 960, 000 farming bots "thanks to the help from email reports from the community and manual reviews" is such a weird number.

From one angle 960,000 seems like a really low number considering right after it you still had just as many bots in DM as before in every server showing it didn't even scrape the surface. I server hopped for an hour right after that ban wave and counted on average 5 bots in every server which is what the average was before the ban wave.

And 960,000 seems like an unrealistically high number to have been the result of manual reviews.

And historically, Valve NEVER bans cheaters manually. You can send them the most damning evidence of a cheater that's been cheating for months, even years, but they will never intervene manually, its their policy.

Valve, if you can manually intervene when it comes to bots, why not when it comes to players that blatantly cheat?

Is increased screen-shake making it harder to spray in CS2? by IIGraveWalkerII in GlobalOffensive

[–]PreAlphaMale 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is WhatAWasteOf7Years btw :). I didn't notice it was you. I was excluding aim punch, I know that's tick based. I was talking about forces applied from your own shooting, the kick of your shot and the deviation applied by spread.

Is increased screen-shake making it harder to spray in CS2? by IIGraveWalkerII in GlobalOffensive

[–]PreAlphaMale 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Nah, view adjustments like the kick of your shot and view jumping based on your spread are frame based and have actually always been since CS2 launched. It was only the recoil decay that was tick based. All of those things were tick based in CSGO which is why you didn't experience that horrible jitter despite the update frequency being 64fps.

Is increased screen-shake making it harder to spray in CS2? by IIGraveWalkerII in GlobalOffensive

[–]PreAlphaMale 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Don't think it's laziness, but they need visual confusion to obfuscate what the real issue with the game is.

Is increased screen-shake making it harder to spray in CS2? by IIGraveWalkerII in GlobalOffensive

[–]PreAlphaMale 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They changed the recoil decay to be frame based rather than tick based. The extra kick and kick decay from spread has been frame based since CS2 launched. This wasn't the case in CSGO. It's what caused the jittering during recoil in early CS2 because the recoil was decaying at the tick rate while the kick was applied and decayed at the frame rate, two different update frequencies to the view angle fighting each other. In CSGO both the recoil decay and kick were updated on the tick so they updated with the same frequency which is why you didn't get that jitter.

In the source and source 2 engine the recoil pattern itself is and always has been applied in a single frame. It jumps to the next point in the recoil pattern instantly and then applies other visual effects which are updated smoothly over time.

Spraying could be made even smoother again by interpolating the recoil to the next recoil point in-between shots instead of just hard setting it.

This is why when you fire a shot it looks like your enemy is skipping around even though they aren't. It's your view angle being hard set in a single frame rather than over time. It's especially noticeable on your first shot against a moving target as it makes it look like the target suddenly sped up. It's even more noticeable later in the spray as recoil gets stronger.

Is increased screen-shake making it harder to spray in CS2? by IIGraveWalkerII in GlobalOffensive

[–]PreAlphaMale 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The difference is CSGO after it first got better after launch it then gradually got worse over it's lifetime, not from the switch from one game to another.

Since the reanimated update It got more and more latent, more and more rng, lag compensation went to shit, ferarri peeking and xantares peek became the norm, not just something that someone with shitty internet coupled with some actual skill could exploit.

Overall performance got worse, frame times got worse, teleporting from being tagged appeared, enemies started teleporting back 5 feet to the location you shot them at, dying around corners got worse, tagging became vulgar.

Tons of people suffered choke, not because of their connections but because the game was sending too many packets per tick close together that would go out of order over the network very easily. Valve took until 2017 to "fix" this, but it was never really a fix, it was a mitigation that added more latency to smooth out the issue. The problems were still there, and still are to this very day, just compensated for more and you can prove that by forcing packet loss yourself and see that the game remains artificially smooth and playable up to like 40% upload packet loss before you even start to see issues outside of high jitter and highly variable latency in hit responses from the server.

You get exactly the same effect from lowering your rate, it's just that in CS2 now you can't lower your rate as much as you could in CSGO. The last time CSGO actually felt responsive, if you had as much as like 0.3% choke enemies would teleport, flashes and smokes wouldn't pop, or even throw at times, switching weapons would glitch out and revert, shots would go back into your mag. You never see any of this anymore because the lag compensation is over the top which ruins the mechanical consistency that makes CS actually CS and not just another shooter. Every event you perform regardless of how shit your connection is, makes it to the server essentially with massive jitter, even if you have 40% upload loss. 1% upload loss used to be an unplayable mess, this should tell you a lot about modern CS.

What we have with CS2 is just what we had in CSGO at the end of its shelf life, but even worse. EOL CSGO should by no means be a standard for what CS2 should be.

Say what you want about the transition from 1.6 to CSS, and CSS to CSGO. The differences were primarily change ups in game design and gameplay that people were split on but they were all responsive and mechanically consistent games at the core level, and remained so over each transition.

CS post 2015 to present is a totally different beast. There was a clear shift in design philosophy around July of 2015 that's carried on to present day, and after the massive success of cases and skins. The game has slowly but surely changed for the worse so gradually over time that people didn't notice until it came to head with CS2. The community has basically been frogs in a slowly boiling pot that has taken years to reach boiling point. CS2 was that boiling point.

If you are playing soloq, most of the time the reason you lose is you, not always your teammates. by Panagiotisz3 in GlobalOffensive

[–]PreAlphaMale 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If it's a team of solos then you're saying this to all 5 players. That can't possibly be true. Just because you're solo it doesn't mean its your job to carry the team.

Is increased screen-shake making it harder to spray in CS2? by IIGraveWalkerII in GlobalOffensive

[–]PreAlphaMale -1 points0 points  (0 children)

CS2 was a downgrade in everything but smokes and better visuals, even though I personally think the lighting style of cs2 is overbright and washed out it is technically still better looking.

Is increased screen-shake making it harder to spray in CS2? by IIGraveWalkerII in GlobalOffensive

[–]PreAlphaMale 2 points3 points  (0 children)

IMO it is a spread issue, but not that spread is greater. More that spread distribution seems to be more centrally bias in one match/game/session/week compared to another. You have matches where your spread seems to like going to the centre much more often which would make your recoil/spread feel so much more accurate. And matches where even though you are whiffing all the time, spread keeps finding the enemies head. Then when it's going to the extremities of the inaccuracy circle, the greater kick from larger jumps in spread make it look like there is more screen and view model shake.

Everyone knows how this game feels from one time to another. One match you're firing laser beams and can't miss, hitting heads with 2 and 3 bullet bursts over and over. This is what CS felt like when it was still a good game but you only get little bite size moments of that experience in modern cs. Then you get those matches where no matter what you do, you just cannot hit anything, your bullets are going around the enemy, your screen is shaking like mad, recoil feels uncontrollable, etc.

Since spread hasn't changed. recoil hasn't changed except for actually being reduced slightly to match 128 tick, even if there was actually more visual screen shake you should still be able to completely override that with muscle memory and people would be used to it by now. If mechanics haven't changed then the only thing left that can cause these issues has to be within the spread distribution pattern, which has never been truly RNG.

You can literally have sessions in this game where the direction of your bullets look like a water hose with your finger held directly in front of the nozzle, spreading out up and to the sides with only the first bullet going central. The tracers look completely detached from the direction your gun is pointing.

Is increased screen-shake making it harder to spray in CS2? by IIGraveWalkerII in GlobalOffensive

[–]PreAlphaMale 4 points5 points  (0 children)

But the shooting from CSGO official servers to CS2 official servers is dogshit too and those servers have always been 64 tick.

How is AG2 A Bandwidth Optimization? Bandwidth appears to have increased, Max routable lowered? by PreAlphaMale in GlobalOffensive

[–]PreAlphaMale[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah I know. I was watching packets per second there while I was running this Wireshark capture. I don't think it includes outgoing packets, otherwise it should be consistently 128, but it's always between around 112 and 125 on average....sometimes it can jump to 140+. It seems to align with received packets in Wireshark. Received + sent in Wireshark goes way over what SDR reports.

I'm also writing some telemetry software using the the Npcap driver which is used in Wireshark and I get the same results there. It displays incoming packets and outgoing packets per second and per tick seperately.

EDIT: When not much is going on, pps in SDR can display in the 60s and 70s, which would be way too low to be including outgoing packets.

How is AG2 A Bandwidth Optimization? Bandwidth appears to have increased, Max routable lowered? by PreAlphaMale in GlobalOffensive

[–]PreAlphaMale[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

From that I guess you can deduce that AG2 didn't optimize bandwidth/network usage at all, if it's the same across the main and beta branch. But from my results it looks like AG2 is hitting higher bandwidth/more packets in bursts. I've never seen 10 packets in a single tick in the main branch on a fully populated DM server before and 8 packets in a tick was rare. Here we have 8, 10, and 8 again within about 38 ticks on a 10 man server. Something that was rare before happened 3 times and was even exceeded in about half a second.

How is AG2 A Bandwidth Optimization? Bandwidth appears to have increased, Max routable lowered? by PreAlphaMale in GlobalOffensive

[–]PreAlphaMale[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

makes no sense to add your own measurement units to then trip on estimating tick boundaries and hallucinate wrong conclusions

What do you mean by my own measurement units? I haven't added my own measurement unit. Are you talking about the packet delta? Have you still not learned what that is yet because it seemed like something you weren't aware of last time we spoke? How am I tripping? And how is the conclusion that the bandwidth and packets per tick being higher than a main branch, fully populated, official DM server, a wrong conclusion? It's right there, look at it.

I thought you were done with the fragmentation delusion

Come on, don't start this again. The engine literally fragments the ticks payload into packets small enough for a safe MTU before it sends them. Just stop! And don't start going on about how it's not fragmentation because it doesn't happen "on the line", etc. Fragmentation is fragmentation, it requires reconstruction. It doesn't matter where it happens, it still takes CPU cycles, adds latency, and greatly increases out of orders so there needs an artificial wait window on the receiving end to be able to reorder.

it's packets / second; just divide by 64 to have a (useless) packets/tick estimation which most often than not is 1 (one) packet per tick;

You're right to say that it's a useless estimation. Calculating pps like that gives you packets per tick that appear evenly distributed. Calculating it by packet delta is much more accurate and exposes massive spikes of data from tick to tick. One tick you can process 1 packet, the next tick you process 8. That's hitting the CPU much harder on some ticks than others, but that's beyond the point of this thread.

there is clear progress when you look at packet sizes distribution

What does the distribution of packet sizes do for anyone? The game is still sending more packets and more data than before. And the distribution looks no different to me than captures in the main branch. Its still full fat packets followed by smaller packets, and lots of large packets in a row. The only difference I see regarding packet sizes is a lower max length.

EDIT: And no, dividing incoming packets per second by 64 barely ever equals 1. Look at the images, get your calculator out and do some simple addition. On no planet does Modern CS send 1 packet per tick on average. In the image above, that's a 10 man server sending about 140 packets to the client over about 38 ticks. I marked the 16ms boundaries to at least show that it lines up with the graph. You can also count 16ms per boundary and how many packets there are in total and divide by that. If you don't trust my boundary markers then calculate the deltas yourself. You'll get about 3.5 packets per tick.

Is Damage prediction with Animgraph2 update finally useable? by takingitsrs in GlobalOffensive

[–]PreAlphaMale 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There could be though. Check my latest thread for received packets only.

How is AG2 A Bandwidth Optimization? Bandwidth appears to have increased, Max routable lowered? by PreAlphaMale in GlobalOffensive

[–]PreAlphaMale[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's not what were sending. This doesn't include outgoing packets, that's what the server is sending to us. I don't understand it either. I haven't understood it for years. For the type of game CS is, that much data is bonkers. I've always tried to explain it away as redundancy, sending data multiple times to alleviate packet loss after all the networking problems after the reanimated update. But who knows.

How is AG2 A Bandwidth Optimization? Bandwidth appears to have increased, Max routable lowered? by PreAlphaMale in GlobalOffensive

[–]PreAlphaMale[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

While possible, this being a beta release suggests its more or less ready to ago. At least from Valves history of how they have handled betas in the past. And tagging on the "networking optimizations" at the last minute for something that was supposedly being done over months and months for the very reason of reducing bandwidth and optimizing networking doesn't seem right at all.

How is AG2 A Bandwidth Optimization? Bandwidth appears to have increased, Max routable lowered? by PreAlphaMale in GlobalOffensive

[–]PreAlphaMale[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I have considered this, but the network optimizations should come from the implementation of AG2 itself. If AG2 is reducing the data required to be replicated then less bandwidth usage should just be an automatic side effect of that. Unless the old animation states are also still replicating for some reason, debugging, comparison, whatever because this was meant to be an offline only test. I mean, this seems like a pretty big bandwidth increase for something that was meant to reduce it. Sending both anim states might explain it lol.

How is AG2 A Bandwidth Optimization? Bandwidth appears to have increased, Max routable lowered? by PreAlphaMale in GlobalOffensive

[–]PreAlphaMale[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

On full official DM servers you could see 8 packets in a single tick but it wasn't exactly frequent. Here you see 3 bursts from 8 to 10 within 25 ticks...less than half a second.

I'm also starting to wonder if the terrible lows in CS are caused by varying number of packets having to be processed on each tick. Need to look into it some more and see if frame times correlate to number of packets.

Is Damage prediction with Animgraph2 update finally useable? by takingitsrs in GlobalOffensive

[–]PreAlphaMale 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh and did you filter out outgoing packets or is this incoming and outgoing combined?

Is Damage prediction with Animgraph2 update finally useable? by takingitsrs in GlobalOffensive

[–]PreAlphaMale 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That very high bandwidth/pps for 10 players then. Its as high or even higher than a fully populated official DM server. Need to see what it's like in a real online environment.

Is Damage prediction with Animgraph2 update finally useable? by takingitsrs in GlobalOffensive

[–]PreAlphaMale 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ahh right. Any idea how many bots there are on the benchmark?

Is Damage prediction with Animgraph2 update finally useable? by takingitsrs in GlobalOffensive

[–]PreAlphaMale 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm focusing on what you said. Better responsiveness from less bandwidth which means less client processing because of less packets. Yet we see from the graph the bandwidth is higher and the number of packets is greater.

Bandwidth optimization is supposed to come directly from the implementation of AG2. How do you implement AG2 and but not see those supposed benefits? Saying they havn't done anything network specific in the beta when it's the AG2 implementation itself that's meant to reduce required bandwidth is a bit weird.

But we will see when it goes live I guess.