It has come to my attention that the anti-cheat system does not appear to permit the destruction of components, even in instances where such components are being eliminated due to circumstances such as falling off the map.
For instance, while using my character, I jumped off the map and received warnings indicating that “protected parts are being deleted.” Upon my character’s respawn, I was subsequently removed from the game for alleged hacking.
The sole method to mitigate these types of behaviors is by disabling the anti_part_tamper feature; however, this action compromises numerous essential functionalities, including but not limited to anti-fly and anti-teleport mechanisms.
I recommend revising the anti-part-tamper mechanisms and separating the various detection methods, rather than depending on property changes initiated by the client. For instance, analyzing patterns of flight based on server-side player movement would be a more effective approach.
I conducted an analysis and observed that the anti-cheat system appears to restrict certain behaviors associated with server-side activities. For instance, when I repositioned components, altered their properties, or removed them from the server, these actions were flagged as cheating by the client.
I am beginning to consider the idea that client-based anti-exploit measures may not be fundamentally comprehensive in their design. Instead of directly identifying specific modifications, such as those associated with Extra Sensory Perception (ESP), it may be more effective to assess the manifestations of such cheating through a detailed analysis of player behavior. For instance, one could identify instances of cheating by observing situations in which players demonstrate knowledge of enemy locations that they should not have access to.
In order to implement an effective client-side anti-exploit mechanism, it is essential to validate each action by cross-referencing it with the server. For instance, when an object is moved or destroyed, it is critical to confirm that the corresponding action has been executed on the server. However, it is anticipated that this approach may introduce latency and adversely affect performance.
I have dedicated a considerable amount of time and effort to the evaluation of your anti-cheat system, and I find your dismissive response to be rather disheartening. After investing numerous hours in conducting simulations and tests, I anticipated a more respectful and thoughtful acknowledgment of my feedback.
The observations I have made should not be interpreted as a dismissal of your work; rather, they are intended to promote its improvement. As a fellow developer, and based on my analysis of your code, it is evident that considerable time and effort have been invested in the development of this system.
The concerns I have articulated are aimed at fostering the ongoing enhancement of your anti-cheat system, rather than undermining its efficacy. I contend that, despite their vulnerability to circumvention, client-side anti-cheat mechanisms hold significant promise. Furthermore, it is essential to strike a balance between restrictions and compatibility, as your existing system requires modifications. Neglecting to acknowledge this may hinder your development as a developer.
Upon reviewing the response provided, I observed that my feedback was not sufficiently taken into account. While I acknowledge the emotional investment you have made in the project, it is imperative to maintain a standard of professionalism in our interactions.
The execution of a Server Physics-Based Simulation (SPBS) has uncovered several issues within the Visionary Anti-Cheat Client Software (VACCS). Specifically, VACCS demonstrates deficiencies in managing part deletion as a result of natural physics accurately. The SPBS highlights the absence of support for part deletion on both the client and server sides for VACCS.
The SPBS illustrates functional deficiencies within the VACCS, resulting in users being disconnected due to the operation of natural-based part physics and subsequent cleanups. The following section presents the testing operations conducted.
To clarify, Visionary Anti-Cheat Client Software disconnects the local client as a consequence of the Server Physics-Based Simulation (SPBS), which exposes inherent flaws within the VACCS, particularly in its management of component deletions. It is hypothesized that this failure stems from the methodology employed by the VACCS to identify client tampering, as well as its insufficient capability to cross-check the server for modifications.
The Visionary Anti-Cheat Client Software functions under the premise that modifications made on the server are mirrored on the client side, leading to the perception that actions initiated from the server originate from the client. This design flaw in the VACCS imposes constraints on both client and server operations, even in scenarios where exploits do not have direct access to the server. Consequently, this limitation unduly hampers the activities of developers.
When I read the messages sent in response to the criticism, it makes me feel that the criticism is being received in offense. As a creator, I can understand that feeling, especially since it occurs a lot in my resource posts from those who look for everything and anything wrong.
However, it’s important to shift this thinking and understand that criticism does serve as a valuable tool for finding issues. For example, the issues those users who responded to you with allowed you to understand some common issues users may experience, which allows you to learn and improve in the future.
Some people are pure trolls, though, and will say anything to get a reaction. But at the same time, people may get frustrated and give you feedback in a rude manner without necessarily being a troll. Understanding this and responding appropriately can serve as a valuable skill as a developer.
i really dont care what people on this forum think as most of them are of subpar critical thinking skills so their opinion on my sideproject called citadel is invalid to me
ive known about the chat and inventory issues
and i have not finished or plan to finish the newest build where those are fixed anytime soon as i have more important stuff to work on
searching on v3rmillion and even the roblox search feature is advanced technology that nobody except high iq people like myself have managed to use to find the lost city of citadel v3
I’m confused by everything I’ve read in this topic. The OP is the one that created Visionary and it seems you are advertising your own anti-cheat in this topic? Can you not just create your own topic to announce your resource?
Seems that would direct all the off-topic post here that are clogging up the OP’s topic dedicated to their anti-cheat resource Visionary?
