Bukkit

@OrgyMotherfucker

Good idea. I'll have to look into how colorcodes in Minecraft chat work before doing that though.

@bigggan

By default, yes, it does allow creative mode flying and prevents hack flying.

@w000rm

Hm, good question. I suggest you use the plugin for a while, e.g. 10 minutes and then run the command "/nocheat performance". It will tell you how much processing time NoCheat wasted, and especially how much time on average for specific events. NoCheat uses only little memory per player, so that's normally no issue (if I had to give a number I'd say no more than 5 MB for 100 online players, but I'd have to calculate that first). Based on the per event times you can guess how many players it will support (e.g. moveEventTime * 20 * numberofplayers = time used per second for the "player_move" event. Compared to player_move, all other stuff NoCheat does is neglegible, as other events aren't called nearly as often.

@OrgyMotherfucker

O thought I had changed it already. My mistake. It's correct now.

@OrgyMotherfucker

It should be a harder to reach 10 by accident now. Those that use force-field will however reach it much faster than before, so you can probably increase it anyway, e.g. to 20.

@OrgyMotherfucker

Updated now. The fight.direction check will now
- only increase the violation level if the server didn't have considerable lag (using the same method to determine that as with the moving.morepackets check)
- increase the violation level by the square root of the distance between expected/real line of sight, instead of always by 1 for every failed check.
- decrease the violation level by 20% every time the player manages to hit the enemy while it is in line of sight, instead of just 5%.

That should help to easier distinguish between those with lag/bad luck and those that blatantly just look somewhere and still attack enemies/animals.

@OrgyMotherfucker

Hard to say. I'll modify the check slightly with the next version, such that the violation level doesn't grow so fast or shrinks faster with the next version. I think it would be possible to reach 10 currently without cheating, if you have bad luck.

@OrgyMotherfucker

Nice to hear that it actually works. :D

I'll add checking for attack distance and frequency eventually. Compared to what it already does, those two should be simple to add.

New version 2.11 is now online, featuring a "fight.direction" check which will try to identify those hacks that allow players to attack all entities close to them ("forcefield"/"kill-aura" and the like).

As a little bonus, not only can it prevent the attack from happening, but also deny all following attacks for a specific timeframe (default 0.5 seconds, you can change that). If the player fails the check again during that time, the timer gets reset. This may result in players using one of the above named hacks to be unable to attack anything (even if hitting correctly from time to time), while most normal players will not notice that delay anyway and think it's just the normal game imprecision when one or two of their clicks didn't result in damaging the enemy.

Overall this should encourage players to aim better and only click when there is a good chance to hit the enemy player, instead of spamming left mouse button while flailing their crosshair wildly across the screen.

To prevent log spam, with default settings the check will only spew out log messages if players fail the check a lot, because legitimate players will fail that check from time to time too, due to normal lag and the enemy changing location before the attack gets processed by the server.

@spowney

Field of view check is almost done now. I could recycle most of the field of view check for block breaking. copypasta ftw. I'll look into the fake jumping while hitting then. Didn't bother yet to read up on how those critical hits work.

btw. me got a l33t logo now. I spent almost 30 seconds at a logo generator website for that masterpiece. :)

@OrgyMotherfucker

Thank you. I've added you to the supporters list.

I just read that "mxAntiPVPCheat" may be continued by somebody else, but the last message from that person was almost two weeks ago. So I'll first implement my own ideas instead of trying to copy how that plugin worked such that, in the unlikely event that it really comes back, both plugins serve a purpose instead of doing the exact same thing. So I'll focus on a field-of-view check first instead of the x-attacks-per-second approach "mxAntiPVPCheat" takes, for now.