Esg

13

Comments

  • dooplpk wrote: »
    ESG seems about as serious as this guy.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQFWJb4spFE&feature=related

    That dude is so serious, he hit this then that and then that.
  • Still waiting for any proof to your assumptions. Quite amusing still.


    These aren't assumptions.


    - No revenue model

    - You have no endorsements, seriously. The league hasn't even been established, how could you have endorsements? Especially with the point I make below. No way.

    - No capital funding

    - You're in the f2p league business. You won't even make money out of this. You're basically blowing money on webhosting, so called developers and prize money and you have no way of gaining anything back. You've already failed Polleus. You should have listened to me months ago. Now I see why you go to an art school.

    - Crossfire league = small niche market = no money












    Whoever disagrees is very unintelligent. Put friendship aside. We all know where this is going. Sorry Polleus, I could have helped you.
  • Hey guys I'm releasing a league with an anti-cheat coded by a group of 5 CIA hackers, it's sponsored by Sony, we'll be running LANs in about a month.

    Doubt me? Too bad, you gotta prove me wrong.
  • But hey, I'm only a 17 year old in high school. What could I possibly know about this topic?
  • But hey, you know what Polleus? You probably don't even care about making money. I understand that now. You just want to set up some sort of league for this well-deserved community. I now completely understand. I let my money making emotions get to the best of me. Sorry. Good luck with the league. I hope you enjoy making it, seeing it grow, and I hope you maybe learn a thing or two from this entire ordeal.

    - You're truly, TastyLimes.
  • doop51doop51 Royal Heir
    tasty_10g wrote: »
    But hey, you know what Polleus? You probably don't even care about making money. I understand that now. You just want to set up some sort of league for this well-deserved community. I now completely understand. I let my money making emotions get to the best of me. Sorry. Good luck with the league. I hope you enjoy making it, seeing it grow, and I hope you maybe learn a thing or two from this entire ordeal.

    - You're truly, TastyLimes.

    Sigh, you've given up. I am disappointed.
  • tasty_10g wrote: »
    But hey, I'm only a 17 year old in high school. What could I possibly know about this topic?

    Here I thought you were a hotshot millionaire. Guess I'll have to look for another role model.
  • I'm with tasty until i actually see how the league is when it comes out.
    Also, How in the world do you have endorsements when the league hasn't even been established yet?-Tastylimes

    But i do believe in esg.
  • CFLDrenCFLDren Holy Knight
    BROimERICK wrote: »
    I'm with tasty until i actually see how the league is when it comes out.
    Also, How in the world do you have endorsements when the league hasn't even been established yet?-Tastylimes

    But i do believe in esg.

    shut up cripface
  • shut up cripface

    i kill bloods

    Can i have a t shirt?
  • BROimERICK wrote: »
    Also, How in the world do you have endorsements when the league hasn't even been established yet?

    They just wanted to impress me so they had to make that up. Little did they know I have more knowledge than all of them about endorsements so I took the entire thing as a big joke.
  • I already have an un patchable un detectable no recoil file.


    Honestly It wont take all this reverse engineering crap and complex bypassing.

    Just a private cheat from [name hidden] that isn't known and a few key file type changes+wrapping it with the anti cheat=ezmoney


    I mean Im sure the anti cheat is descent but you can't block what you have no knowledge of.

    And no sh1tty name process or kernel memory detection will not stop [name hidden] method.
  • BROimERICK wrote: »
    Well, I don't really understand what takes this long to be honest, Besides an anti cheat still being coded.
    So I'm just wondering.

    shouldn't rush right in to it. everything should be able to work and run b4 it gets released, if not it be messed up.
  • I already have an un patchable un detectable no recoil file.


    Honestly It wont take all this reverse engineering crap and complex bypassing.

    Just a private cheat from [name hidden] that isn't known and a few key file type changes+wrapping it with the anti cheat=ezmoney


    I mean Im sure the anti cheat is descent but you can't block what you have no knowledge of.

    And no sh1tty name process or kernel memory detection will not stop [name hidden] method.

    I laughed. I really did. Like I said, a lot of people are going to be in for a rude awakening. Haters gonna hate.
  • I already have an un patchable un detectable no recoil file.


    Honestly It wont take all this reverse engineering crap and complex bypassing.

    Just a private cheat from [name hidden] that isn't known and a few key file type changes+wrapping it with the anti cheat=ezmoney


    I mean Im sure the anti cheat is descent but you can't block what you have no knowledge of.

    And no sh1tty name process or kernel memory detection will not stop [name hidden] method.

    Few problems I see with your whole post.
    First, everyone knows nothing is undetectable. Things may be undetected, but not undetectable. Security by obscurity is probably one of the worst forms of security. Especially if you plan on selling the cheat.

    Second, most modern ac's don't rely on process name scanning to find cheats. Sorry to inform you.

    Third, the only way you will have no recoil that can withstand an update is by finding a static offset, which everything is relative to cshell.dll so you won't. Or by signature scanning, which may or may not be reliable. ESEA/EAC hook and relocate some engine functions, what's not to say ESG wouldn't do the same thing? Also, then you have to patch memory, which is extremely detectable. Unless you do it externally and attempt to compensate yourself, which is unreliable and not as accurate to begin with. But you should also know ESEA hooks zwReadProcessMemory, effectively logging all RPM calls from the kernel. Did I mention they also hook SetCursorPos on the SSDT? That would disable external aimbots using that method, which would also kill your external no recoil.

    Bottom line is, maybe you should learn what your talking about before you open your mouth.
  • tasty_10g wrote: »
    No, Polleus told me that he won't be charging players to play in the league (which is the main revenue model in leagues) so therefore, he won't be making anything. Don't mention advertisements because he will be getting 5 peso tops monthly from that.

    ESEA and CEVO both pay out more than they bring in as far as league fees. Good game.
  • DatMuffin wrote: »

    I like you tasty, but your statements have absolutely no backing. It's like Suko saying he could bypass an anticheat himself when he probably doesn't know how to design an installer.



    .......


    Of course I don't. That's a dumb remark from you Moof.
  • After reading 6 pages of this, I find tastylimes in the right for most of this due to the fact that pulleus really hasn't shown any kind of proof of the opposite. (it could also be the fact that I find pulleus an obnoxious pubstar, but...)
  • AES256 wrote: »
    ESEA and CEVO both pay out more than they bring in as far as league fees. Good game.

    Please, dont put esea and cevo in the same sentence, it just proves how little you actually know.
  • ryangi wrote: »
    After reading 6 pages of this, I find tastylimes in the right for most of this due to the fact that pulleus really hasn't shown any kind of proof of the opposite. (it could also be the fact that I find pulleus an obnoxious pubstar, but...)

    your an obnoxious pubstar!
  • Says I'm obnoxious, when he doesn't even play with me nor comes in our mumble to hang out, therefore doesn't even know me. More empty statements - Day 2.
  • IceMan52144IceMan52144 Veteran Elite
    Id like to hear more of the FACTS you have ryangi.
  • IceMan52144IceMan52144 Veteran Elite
    I will say this though. I can see where the arguments can come from since we dont have things online for everyone to see as of yet.....but theres a reason we are doing that.
  • I actually agree with them Ice. They don't know much, they haven't seen anything outside of a logo. So the skeptical opinions are understandable. But don't go making assumptions about how bad our stuff is going to be when all of you barely know anything.

    There is a reason we haven't released more yet. Just wait until it comes out and then trash talk all you want if it's bad. Until then, what basis do you have to say it's bad or will be bad? No facts at all, just empty assumptions.
  • AES256 wrote: »
    Few problems I see with your whole post.
    First, everyone knows nothing is undetectable. Things may be undetected, but not undetectable. Security by obscurity is probably one of the worst forms of security. Especially if you plan on selling the cheat.

    Second, most modern ac's don't rely on process name scanning to find cheats. Sorry to inform you.

    Third, the only way you will have no recoil that can withstand an update is by finding a static offset, which everything is relative to cshell.dll so you won't. Or by signature scanning, which may or may not be reliable. ESEA/EAC hook and relocate some engine functions, what's not to say ESG wouldn't do the same thing? Also, then you have to patch memory, which is extremely detectable. Unless you do it externally and attempt to compensate yourself, which is unreliable and not as accurate to begin with. But you should also know ESEA hooks zwReadProcessMemory, effectively logging all RPM calls from the kernel. Did I mention they also hook SetCursorPos on the SSDT? That would disable external aimbots using that method, which would also kill your external no recoil.

    Bottom line is, maybe you should learn what your talking about before you open your mouth.

    You're making it sound more sophisticated than it really is. I've unpacked ESEA's client. It uses Bitblt to take screen shots. It's loader scans processes, and eseaclient.***.dll injects itself into the game and patches game pointers. This is programming 101 stuff. Besides, ESG won't even use any of this.

    AES256 wrote: »
    ESEA and CEVO both pay out more than they bring in as far as league fees. Good game.

    CEVO is nearly dead and under many circumstances doesn't even pay out out. You're pretty unintelligent.
  • tasty_30g wrote: »
    Besides, ESG won't even use any of this.

    Facts on this? No? You're making a lot of assumptions with nothing to back it up. You have no idea what we're having done, therefore absolutely no clue of what you're talking about. It's pretty sad. Still amusing though.
  • Facts on this? No? You're making a lot of assumptions with nothing to back it up. You have no idea what we're having done, therefore absolutely no clue of what you're talking about. It's pretty sad. Still amusing though.

    It's a Crossfire anti cheat. All you're doing is at best screen shots and scanning processes. The Crossfire engine isn't as flexible as a the Source engine. ESEA can integrate itself into the game.
  • tasty_30g wrote: »
    It's a Crossfire anti cheat. All you're doing is at best screen shots and scanning processes. The Crossfire engine isn't as flexible as a the Source engine. ESEA can integrate itself into the game.

    How do you know it was built just for Cross Fire? Still no facts? Still amusing.

    You know nothing. I thought a man of your intelligence would actually be better than that.
  • How do you know it was built just for Cross Fire? Still no facts? Still amusing.

    You know nothing. I thought a man of your intelligence would actually be better than that.

    the thing is , we've been waiting for a working ac for like 2 and a half years now , so we're kinda skeptical about the ac's , but hey best of luck doing it Polleus!!
This discussion has been closed.