Java Add Support For BAC

[TheDarkSavage]

people don’t have to use optifine but they use it
people don’t have to use 5zig but they use it

I don't use mods, and the same goes for many other people.

people don’t have to play minecraft but they do

People play Minecraft because it's fun. How is BAC itself fun?

 

[MagnificentSpam]

6. This opens a lot of possibilities for competitive modes.

What possibilities?

 

[A pigeon]

What possibilities?

It really doesnt because like they said, it wouldnt be mandatory. It could open doors for clean and fair competitive mc but only if it would b3 compulsory to install, but that is out of the question.

 

[Unipotatoo]

I highly doubt we will ever require all players to download a 3rd party client just to join the server. That would severely limit the amount of people who would play and limit the amount of people who would join for the first time. I personally would not go through all the hassle of downloading all this client side stuff just to join a server that I have not played on before. Much easier just to move on to another one. We are more of a casual server, that is, not competitive.

would be nice that if u run this client sentinel wont false ban. would lead to less false bans tbh

 

[TheDarkSavage]

would be nice that if u run this client sentinel wont false ban. would lead to less false bans tbh

You do realize that about 90% of the people who say they were false banned were rightly banned, don't you?

 

[0ffense]

You do realize that about 90% of the people who say they were false banned were rightly banned, don't you?

There is no way of telling that at all. How do you know that?

 

[0ffense]

It really doesnt because like they said, it wouldnt be mandatory. It could open doors for clean and fair competitive mc but only if it would b3 compulsory to install, but that is out of the question.

It could be required to play certain competitive modes. That way you can be certain that everyone playing that mode is legit. It is out of the question to make it mandatory to have in order to log on, but not out of the question to have it mandatory to play certain games.

What possibilities?

He means that if the games could be more competitive if we made some of them mandatory to have the badlion client on.

 

[TheDarkSavage]

There is no way of telling that at all. How do you know that?

Because I'm smart enough to know that Sentinal is that smart. Besides, if all of those bans are false, then their appeals would get accepted .

 

[0ffense]

Because I'm smart enough to know that Sentinal is that smart. Besides, if all of those bans are false, then their appeals would get accepted .

ha, no.

I've been false banned; my appeal wasn't accepted. I mean it expired now, but that doesn't mean it wasn't false. You also can't use the argument "I am smart enough to know that Sentinel is smart" because that's invalid. There is no certainty of what bans are false and which aren't.

 

[TheDarkSavage]

It could be required to play certain competitive modes. That way you can be certain that everyone playing that mode is legit. It is out of the question to make it mandatory to have in order to log on, but not out of the question to have it mandatory to play certain games.

He means that if the games could be more competitive if we made some of them mandatory to have the badlion client on.

I will quit Cube if I have to use it for some modes.

ha, no.

Please explain why I am wrong instead of just denying it.

 

[A pigeon]

I will quit Cube if I have to use it for some modes.



Please explain why I am wrong instead of just denying it.

He did. @cobvig was false banned.

 

[0ffense]

I will quit Cube if I have to use it for some modes.



Please explain why I am wrong instead of just denying it.

I edited my post, and you quitting cube because some of the minigames have it required is ridiculous. It's not like you can't play at all.

 

[CommunistCactus]

To anyone who still says "nobody would use it and it won't be effective against hackers"
You're denying reality. Badlion is a real-life example which proved the opposite, despite what you all have to say about it. Even if it didn't work against hackers, that's just one aspect of the many things BAC brings with it.

Also @TheDqrkSqvqge.exe just because a mod said it doesn't mean it's correct (and I know for sure it influenced your opinion, having enough experience on the forums for that), especially when the mods themselves are proven wrong in the comment below.

Just agreeing with them whilst not listening to the comments below that which point out how flawed their comments are only shows that you can't think for yourself.

Also don't spew bullfeces like this, you have no knowledge of the actual numbers except guessing:

You do realize that about 90% of the people who say they were false banned were rightly banned, don't you?

 

[MagnificentSpam]

He means that if the games could be more competitive if we made some of them mandatory to have the badlion client on.

1. This is not mandatory.

The premise of the thread is that it's not mandatory. It can not be mandatory anywhere on the server.

If it is not mandatory, who uses the acconts that get banned? I can think of
1. Hack developers that are working on a bypass for bac.
2. Players that get tricked into downloading hacks that say they bypass bac but actually don't.
3. Players that use mouse macros and don't know it's against the rules or hope they don't get caught.
4. Players that get banned accidentially and are not cheating.

Again, if I am hacking, why would I voluntarily install a client side anti cheat.

The ONLY use I see is preventing/appealing false bans.

 

[TheDarkSavage]

He did. @cobvig was false banned.

I said 90% of the 'false bans' were correct bans. not 100%. Besides, how do you know for sure he wasn't hacking(I'm not saying he was hacking, just making a point)?

I edited my post, and you quitting cube because some of the minigames have it required is ridiculous. It's not like you can't play at all.

What games would you need it for?

 

[TheBrownster]

Players that use mouse macros and don't know it's against the rules or hope they don't get caught.

I am interested in this point. I believe that it was said that BAC does not pick up built in macros/double click functions on a mouse. Sentinel does. So this would mean we would at least need Sentinel tracking autoclicker for those using BAC (hypothetical if it was added) which defeats a big purpose of even adding BAC and working to integrate it. Plus, when client devs do create a bypass (which I guarantee they will do, because nothing is 100% secure), we will have to enable all the detections, which again, defeats the entire purpose of it and we would have wasted all that time integrating it into the system.

 

[0ffense]

I just, idk anymore. Why is everyone looking into every single negative thing about this? Look at GommeHD and Badlion, they prove that this BAC thing works perfectly without any problems of any sort. So, how can you guys still have so much doubt as to be against this?

The premise of the thread is that it's not mandatory. It can not be mandatory anywhere on the server.

If it is not mandatory, who uses the acconts that get banned? I can think of
1. Hack developers that are working on a bypass for bac.
2. Players that get tricked into downloading hacks that say they bypass bac but actually don't.
3. Players that use mouse macros and don't know it's against the rules or hope they don't get caught.
4. Players that get banned accidentially and are not cheating.

Again, if I am hacking, why would I voluntarily install a client side anti cheat.

The ONLY use I see is preventing/appealing false bans.

Why is it a rule that BLC is not mandatory anywhere on the server? It doesn't need to be mandatory to log in with, but it should be mandatory to play a few highly competitive games. I don't know what all of those things you listed are about. What should we care about the accounts that get banned? And there is no such thing as a false BLC ban it just doesn't exist.

I said 90% of the 'false bans' were correct bans. not 100%. Besides, how do you know for sure he wasn't hacking(I'm not saying he was hacking, just making a point)?



What games would you need it for?

How do you know for sure that 90% of Sentinel bans are false? This uncertainty of how many bans are actually true was probably one of the motivations to create this system. I don't know any of the current games that would need BLC for but you could implement it for something like competitive eggwars which was suggested a while ago.

I am interested in this point. I believe that it was said that BAC does not pick up built in macros/double click functions on a mouse. Sentinel does. So this would mean we would at least need Sentinel tracking autoclicker for those using BAC (hypothetical if it was added) which defeats a big purpose of even adding BAC and working to integrate it. Plus, when client devs do create a bypass (which I guarantee they will do, because nothing is 100% secure), we will have to enable all the detections, which again, defeats the entire purpose of it and we would have wasted all that time integrating it into the system.

Ok, here we go. You are clutching at straws, you are somehow finding the tiniest arguments you can do go against this. Like I said before GommeHD and Badlion have already proven that you cannot bypass the client and even if a handful of people use something on their mouse it doesn't even make a difference. I don't actually know who said that a mouse function bypasses BLC because I don't think it does. Then there's the fear that there will be a bypass for BLC which I have already addressed. You can say that nothing is 100% secure but it really is. If not it's 99.99999999% secure.

 

[A pigeon]

I am interested in this point. I believe that it was said that BAC does not pick up built in macros/double click functions on a mouse. Sentinel does. So this would mean we would at least need Sentinel tracking autoclicker for those using BAC (hypothetical if it was added) which defeats a big purpose of even adding BAC and working to integrate it. Plus, when client devs do create a bypass (which I guarantee they will do, because nothing is 100% secure), we will have to enable all the detections, which again, defeats the entire purpose of it and we would have wasted all that time integrating it into the system.

Autoclick is useless on 1.9

 

[TheDarkSavage]

Autoclick is useless on 1.9

You can set an autoclicker to work every ??.?? seconds, meaning you can make it aura. I know this because I used to have an autoclicker for other things.

 

[TheDarkSavage]

100th comment on this thread(Just wanted to do that)