BF3 Colour Tweaker, what the...?

Discussion in 'Battlefield 3' started by MrFrenk, Oct 12, 2012.

  1. MrFrenk

    MrFrenk New Member

    34
    0
    Hi guys, I always lurked this forum (as I usually did in the EA UK one) but I need to clarify an urgent topic.
    Sorry for my bad english:

    1 - about 7 days ago - Realmware releases COLOUR and FILES tweakers
    2 - 10/08/12 - PBBans says "We are not kicking for BF3 Colour Tweaker released by Realmware." (http://www.pbbans.com/forums/battlefield-3-file-tweaker-and-md5tool-kicks-t164651.html).
    3 - 10/09/12 - Dice relases a new "anti cheat protection" which seems to consider the colour tweaker bannable. (http://www.pbbans.com/forums/battlefield-3-file-tweaker-and-md5tool-kicks-t164651.html).
    4 - 10/12/12 - Nobody's been banned (only kicked) for using the colour tweaker.
    5 - I don't know when - Realmware official FAQ about their colour tweaker which shortly answers "I dunno" to the "will I get banned for using this?" question. (http://bf3.realmware.co.uk/colour-tweaker/faq.)


    After this short sum up, I would like to ask you something:

    1) Is DICE stupid?
    2) Are the Colour tweaker users bannable YES or NOT?
    3) Is DICE stupid?
    4) Is the FXAA considered illegal too?
    5) Is DICE completely crap?
    6) Has anybody asked via twitter if DICE considers the COLOUR tweaker users bannale? Can't they find a way to ban only the file tweaker users (who are really hacking, imho) and not the colour tweaker users?
     
  2. xnorb

    xnorb Member

    5,896
    2,068
    1, 3, 5 - yes
    4 - as it doesn't remove all the blue, DICE seems to be fine with it
    6 - even if you do, most likely you will not get an answer
    2 - no clue
     
    1 person likes this.
  3. phreec

    phreec Member

    4,170
    4,087
    1) Yes.
    2) Only temporarily (5 minutes) so far if the server has MD5Tool check enabled.
    3) Yes.
    4) No. It's always been in the 'gray zone' as it's nothing official but I'm yet to see anyone getting banned for it but actual cheating bitches blaming the injector once their paid cheats are busted.
    5) Pretty much.
    6) Tinkering with game files, reverse engineering etc is against the ToS so that's their final stand.
     
  4. myth1485

    myth1485 Member Silver Donor

    868
    2,214
    Seems to me you have a good grasp on the course of events with a couple of things missing.

    As far as the Tweaker / Realmware being bannable... all I've seen is reports here or there about "a friend of friend said he got banned"... it's all anecdotal, no hard proof. But DICE has said they want to ban for it.

    For questions 1, 3, and 5 I'm think the answer is yes, they are terrible and I'll tell you why I think so.

    It is certainly easier to detect if the files have been modified at all than it is to determine what has been modified. For that matter, what would be okay to change and what wouldn't could be debated for quite a long time. They may not even have the capability to detect what has been modified, only if it has. So I understand the Tweaker or Realmware being bannable.

    Or I would understand it if overt and pervasive hacks like aimbots and wallhacks were bannable. But they aren't, the offender gets their stats wiped. Which is a Premium feature... something people pay extra to be able to do. For example, I cannot reset my stats even though I pre-ordered the game, but Premium members and hackers can.

    To me, this seems to be a pretty clear cut case of DICE lashing out against us, MordorHQ. It's no secret that the Tweaker first appeared on the pages of our forums and we've made it no secret that we hated their art direction ever since it first appeared in Beta.





    *** There is no doubt that some people will use the Tweaker to give themselves recoiless, 1-hit kill super weapons and suppression immunity but banning those people along side people that removed a blue layer while allowing aimbots and wallhackers to roam free is not a proportional response. ***





    Edit: Hahaha, when did Halling delete his tweet (quoted below)

     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2012
  5. jalalalalabar

    jalalalalabar Member

    6,153
    1,595
    FXAA injector didnt removed their "blue" that much...so they are safed to be stay but however the new tools can turn off most of their "fancy" art effects so they are mad about it.
     
  6. xnorb

    xnorb Member

    5,896
    2,068
    Point being - even the FXAA injector shouldn't go undetected.
    The injector works on the same layer as a crosshair or radar hack would.

    DICE have been extremely lazy when it comes to cheat-protection in BF3.
    Especially with their client side hitreg / damage calculation they should have
    been WAY more cautious when it comes to detecting what happens on the PC.

    You know all those guys crying in BC2 (because of horrible netcode/server code)
    about cheaters everywhere ?
    In BF3 there are actually that many cheaters around.
    Just with the horrible netcode and low TTK you can't even tell so unless they are
    overdoing it horribly.
     
  7. MrFrenk

    MrFrenk New Member

    34
    0
    mmm, I think I'll wait for an official statement.. "soon".
     
  8. Frankelstner

    Frankelstner Member

    161
    211
    I've done some tests recently: http://www.bfeditor.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=15732&view=findpost&p=106180

    It looks to me like just another case of "designer forgot to set a bool/number". Expect this to be silently fixed one day without the person responsible ever admitting any fault.
     
  9. MikaelKalms

    MikaelKalms New Member

    38
    277
    First, here is the latest official news post on the subject matter: http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf3/news/view/2832654786467338271/


    Here are the three key sentences:
    "we also want to make sure that the game files have not been compromised for any reason"
    "We will not differentiate between someone who has modified the game for reasons he thinks are benign and a player doing it to cause grief online."
    "Players tampering with the game files for any reason need to know that this is against DICE and EA policy and is grounds for banning."


    The above sentences essentially say: Don't play online with modified BF3 executables or datafiles. It doesn't matter if it's changes to colorization, suppression, sun flare, weapon damages, replaced textures, modified meshes or whatnot. Any changes to the datafiles while playing online may result in a ban.


    Notice that we keep referring to modifications in the context of playing online. Apparently we don't care much about what you do when playing offline. Why not? Because changes to the offline game do not affect the game or the social experience for other players.




    So. Why do we say that "any changes to datafiles are bannable" instead of "some changes are bannable"?


    Well, first off we'd have to delineate which changes are acceptable and which are not.
    Colour tint changes, are those OK?
    How about suppression blur, some people absolutely loathe it, should reducing/eliminating that be acceptable?
    How about the sun flare, same story there?
    Etc. There are more pet peeves which some people have.


    Then... while we might draft a list of which changes are acceptable and which are not, a number of people will not realize which changes are acceptable and which we might ban for. This will result in a number of people saying "I was just changing the value of setting X, I thought that was perfectly reasonable and now I'm banned." In order to resolve such cases we would need to add extra logging to the scanning tools to ensure that enough info is logged that it's possible to accept/refute people's statements.
    Then we may have to go back revising these over time as a lot of people begin asking for more changes to be whitelisted.
    Then you can bet that there will be a constant stream of inquiries to us regarding "is it really allowed... really really?" regarding the specific set of "allowed changes". Any users except the most technically savvy will be worried that they get banned by using this tool, even though we say they won't.
    If someone by accident changes something else than just the tint, they will get banned. It's not fun getting banned. It's not fun sorting out the mess after someone has been banned either (justly? unjustly? what was the intent behind the action that got the person banned? etc)


    There is a mechanism for performing approved changes to the game. You know the in-game console? That's a way to send various commands to the game. If we wanted you to be able to modify a certain setting, we should expose it to you either via the in-game UI or via a console command. You can also put these console commands in a file named "user.cfg" and have them processed by the game automatically during startup.






    Now, regarding the FXAA injector. As far as I know it does not modify any files within the C:\Program Files\Battlefield 3 directory. DICE hasn't expressed any opinion, neither positive nor negative, on the FXAA injector as of yet.






    One more thing. Consistently denigrating DICE and referring to the company as 'stupid' creates an atmosphere where people who work at the company will not come here unless they absolutely have to, for business reasons. I know, it's 'the done thing' around here, but ... is that really how you want this place to function?
     
    15 people like this.
  10. myth1485

    myth1485 Member Silver Donor

    868
    2,214
    @MikaelKalms

    You can come on here and chastise us for being denigrating toward DICE all you want, lord knows you have some cause, but until you can adequately answer the starred portion of my post I'm afraid that DICE's stance on the Tweaker in regards to how it is handled in comparison to overt cheats is still very questionable.

     
  11. phreec

    phreec Member

    4,170
    4,087
    Can we please get this for the filter so we wont have to resort to potentially harmful tweakers then? :smilie_pray:
     
  12. AdrIneX

    AdrIneX Member Green Donor

    4,146
    2,297
    @MikaelKalms

    First of all, thanks for taking time to explain the issue on this site. It's a pretty brave thing of you to do eventhough some people from DICE (no names) have directly and indirectly said they won't be visiting this place. With having said that, I want to know why DICE are so adamant on NOT giving the player the option to turn off the color correction/blue tint. I understand that Demize99 thinks the game looks unique with it. There are however thousands of players who disagree with him. I hope even you understand the fact that people massively jumped on this tweak (to turn off the color grading) gives a certain message?

    PS: About the insulting messages directed towards DICE. IMHO the mods are doing an outstanding job to remove the really offensive stuff. Otherwise this place is pretty clean and certainly doesn't compare to Battlelog when it comes down to that.
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2012
    3 people like this.
  13. TOCS

    TOCS Silver Donor Silver Donor

    1,423
    814
    The Realmware Colour Tweaker created a file called 'fill.fx' the 10/10/12 15:39, and I received a ban by ACI for it. And to answer your question from the last topic phreec, no, I have no clue what a 'Shrooms hook' is, however, the file which I apparently seem to have, contains the following harmless text:

    /*------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    FXAA SHADER
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------*/


    #define FXAA_PC 1
    #define FXAA_HLSL_4 1
    #define FXAA_QUALITY__PRESET 39


    #include "injFX_Settings.h"
    #include "injFX_Shaders\Fxaa3_11.h"


    Texture2D gScreenTexture : register(t0);
    Texture2D gLumaTexture : register(t1);
    SamplerState screenSampler : register(s0);


    //Difinitions: BUFFER_WIDTH, BUFFER_HEIGHT, BUFFER_RCP_WIDTH, BUFFER_RCP_HEIGHT


    struct PS_INPUT
    {
    float2 vTexcoord : TEXCOORD0;
    };
    struct VS_Output
    {
    float4 Pos : SV_POSITION;
    float2 Tex : TEXCOORD0;
    };
    struct VS_Input
    {
    float4 Pos : POSITION;
    float2 Tex : TEXCOORD0;
    };


    VS_Output VSMain( VS_Input Input )
    {
    VS_Output Output;
    Output.Pos = Input.Pos;
    Output.Tex = Input.Tex;
    return Output;
    }


    #include "injFX_Shaders\Post.h"


    float4 LumaShader( VS_Output Input ) : SV_TARGET
    {
    float4 c0 = main(Input.Tex);
    c0.w = dot(c0.xyz,float3(0.299, 0.587, 0.114)); //store luma in alpha
    //c0.w = sqrt(dot(c0.xyz,float3(0.299, 0.587, 0.114))); //store luma in alpha
    return c0;
    }

    float4 MyShader( VS_Output Input ) : SV_TARGET
    {
    #ifdef USE_ANTI_ALIASING
    FxaaTex t = { screenSampler, gLumaTexture };
    float4 c0 = FxaaPixelShader(
    Input.Tex, //pos
    0, //fxaaConsolePosPos (?)
    t, //tex
    t, //fxaaConsole360TexExpBiasNegOne
    t, //fxaaConsole360TexExpBiasNegTwo
    float2(BUFFER_RCP_WIDTH, BUFFER_RCP_HEIGHT), //fxaaQualityRcpFrame
    float4(-0.5*BUFFER_RCP_WIDTH,-0.5*BUFFER_RCP_HEIGHT,0.5*BUFFER_RCP_WIDTH,0.5*BUFFER_RCP_HEIGHT), //fxaaConsoleRcpFrameOpt
    float4(-2.0*BUFFER_RCP_WIDTH,-2.0*BUFFER_RCP_HEIGHT,2.0*BUFFER_RCP_WIDTH,2.0*BUFFER_RCP_HEIGHT), //fxaaConsoleRcpFrameOpt2
    float4(8.0*BUFFER_RCP_WIDTH,8.0*BUFFER_RCP_HEIGHT,-4.0*BUFFER_RCP_WIDTH,-4.0*BUFFER_RCP_HEIGHT), //fxaaConsole360RcpFrameOpt2
    fxaaQualitySubpix,
    fxaaQualityEdgeThreshold,
    fxaaQualityEdgeThresholdMin,
    0, //fxaaConsoleEdgeSharpness
    0, //fxaaConsoleEdgeThreshold
    0, //fxaaConsoleEdgeThresholdMin
    0 //fxaaConsole360ConstDir
    );
    c0.w = 1;
    #else
    float4 c0 = myTex2D(lumaSampler,Tex);
    #endif
    return c0;
    }


    float4 MyShader( float2 Tex : TEXCOORD0 ) : COLOR0
    {
    float4 c0 = main(Tex);
    c0.w = 1;
    return saturate(c0);
    }


    technique PostProcess1
    {
    pass p1
    {
    SetPixelShader(CompileShader(ps_5_0, VSMain()));
    }
    }
    technique PostProcess2
    {
    pass p1
    {
    SetPixelShader(CompileShader(ps_5_0, VSMain()));
    }
    }



    That's definitely from the FXAA Injector. Did anyone else get a ban by ACI for this?
     
  14. yiyeyigit

    yiyeyigit Member

    1,036
    94
    Well Kalms we have breached a gate, why dont you guys help us to mod an unranked gameplay?
     
  15. AlienBurns

    AlienBurns Member Green Donor

    814
    222
    You obviously haven't been here long if you don't know that they have treated us far worse than we have them. And yes they do only come here for business reasons, just another insult. Matros and Hailing used to pop in just before DLC drops and just started argument's.
     
    7 people like this.
  16. yiyeyigit

    yiyeyigit Member

    1,036
    94
    This x1000 times. If DICE hadn't come here for bussiness reasons first, we could have some decent relationship.


    Edit: There is no deccency in DICE as well, the lies the marketing spew and the state of final product was baffling to begin with, and what next? Closing down EAUK? Why should we like you guys anyway? I personally haven't bought AK after ranting here for too long.
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2012
    1 person likes this.
  17. BR4DDERS

    BR4DDERS Silver Donor Platinum Donor

    3,873
    1,510
    I didn't think Realmwares Colour Tweaker created additional files, I thought it was just a Hex editor that modified the files directly.
     
  18. MikaelKalms

    MikaelKalms New Member

    38
    277
    @myth1485, there are generally two forms of anti-cheat work happening on the game client side.

    Firstly, there is that which we do ourselves. This is about how we architect the client/server model. How does authentication work? How is the simulation split between client and server? Which parts of the simulation are done on both sides? Who is authoritative during conflicts? What extra checks are being done on either side?

    Then there is that which we license EvenBalance to do for us. This is mainly about identifying other processes which do various things - aimbots, wallhacks, ESP style stuff, recoil minimization, etc - which the architecture of BF3 lacks good self-protection against.

    I interpret your comment as follows: "It's an unbalanced response to ban both people who do benign modifications and nasty modifications. Oh, and there is another class of hacks over here [wallhacks and aimbots] which they aren't doing anything about".
    If you had left out that last jib, your statement would have been more coherent and it would be easier for me to consider it to be well thought-out criticism. As it stands now, I get the feeling that you are saying that:
    - DICE responding by saying "no file modifications are allowed" is too coarse grained.
    - DICE is not doing a good enough job with other classes of anti-cheat work.

    So let's hypothetically say that we wanted to take action on both these points. First off, the bulk of work on item #2 are being done by EvenBalance. Apparently
    you are not happy with their work. We license the service from them because we believe that they do a better job than we would.

    Then, item #1. There is a limited amount of engineering time available. If we want to work out a more fine-grained strategy then we have to do the job that I've listed in my previous post. This will take time from other things, including other architectural anti-cheat work. I believe that time is better spent elsewhere.


    @phreec: Good point. I like to see someone thinking in a constructive manner!


    @Adrinex: I don't know the motivations of the others - haven't been part of those discussions. I've just silently observed the brouhaha on the internets and stepped in when people began doing damage to the online gameplay. I have no opinion on the aesthetics myself.
     
  19. hwfanatic

    hwfanatic Member

    434
    65
    The tweaker doesn't create any files. I really don't care how and why you've got that file but please stop using the tweaker as some kind of excuse.
    Exactly.