Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Is mouseBox safe to use?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    126
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Quoted
    37 Post(s)

    Default Is mouseBox safe to use?

    Is it safe to use mouseBox? Or is it better to click an object at pure random points without normal distribution to avoid bans?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,147
    Mentioned
    221 Post(s)
    Quoted
    1068 Post(s)

    Default

    Mouse clicks based on the object shape would be best.

    Nobody clicks in a normal distribution within a box on a rock/tree. Inventory slots/actionbar boxes maybe it's more understandable but I'd reckon people click on the object and not the blank spaces that are technically still part of the inventory slot.
    Nobody clicks in a purely random (pseudo-random) distribution either.

    Doesn't mean mousebox isn't safe though, I think normal distribution is better than pure random because it's likely more conforming to the object. After enough of a sample size it's obvious you are macroing either way. Highly unlikely they are running behavioral analysis at this level though.

    To feel "safer" try click randomly amongst a TPA of the object rather than a defined area.
    Last edited by Clarity; 05-05-2017 at 07:47 PM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    126
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Quoted
    37 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Clarity View Post
    Mouse clicks based on the object shape would be best.

    Nobody clicks in a normal distribution within a box on a rock/tree.
    Nobody clicks in a purely random (pseudo-random) distribution either.

    Doesn't mean mousebox isn't safe though, I think normal distribution is better than pure random because it's likely more conforming to the object. After enough of a sample size it's obvious you are macroing either way. Highly unlikely they are running behavioral analysis at this level though.

    To feel "safer" try click randomly amongst a TPA of the object rather than a defined area.
    Thanks!
    Currently I'm getting the bounds of the ATPA and then use mouseBox. Should I let the midPoint vary a few pixels every click or is that unnecessary?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,147
    Mentioned
    221 Post(s)
    Quoted
    1068 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DonVitoCorleone View Post
    Thanks!
    Currently I'm getting the bounds of the ATPA and then use mouseBox. Should I let the midPoint vary a few pixels every click or is that unnecessary?
    Sure, why not? Can't hurt.
    Idk what you're scripting exactly, but whenever I script something, I either do the activity myself for awhile and see how I do it, or watch a YouTube video of someone doing it and seeing how they click around. Sometimes, the activity itself is so mundane (like alching) that humans do it in such a botlike manner because that's really the only way to do it. At that point your antiban (imo) should be centered around a concept like your hand getting tired from clicking the same spot.

    Anyway, the consensus we all seem to come to on these antiban threads is that the mouse stuff is pretty irrelevant, we should be focused on avoiding client detection/virtual click detection etc.

    If you are having ban problems it is probably unrelated to your mouse movements if you are being reasonably random on everything you do.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    483
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Quoted
    328 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Clarity View Post
    we should be focused on avoiding client detection/virtual click detection etc.
    Even more so than this, I believe our primary focus should be their server sided heuristics, which they have said themselves are the backbone of their system. Infact accounts recently banned in their bot banning livestreams were all caught via their "heuristics". As I've discussed with others, much of the academia around anti-cheat technology is centered on server-side heuristics (or analyzation) of player data.

    You don't need to know how their heuristics work to defeat them, your bot just needs to act human.

    Here are some examples:
    • Intervals between actions
    • Path repetition
    • Unrealistic play time
    • Perfect accuracy


    Defeat their heuristics, and you are on a very solid track of remaining undetectable.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    126
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Quoted
    37 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Clarity View Post
    Sure, why not? Can't hurt.
    Idk what you're scripting exactly, but whenever I script something, I either do the activity myself for awhile and see how I do it, or watch a YouTube video of someone doing it and seeing how they click around. Sometimes, the activity itself is so mundane (like alching) that humans do it in such a botlike manner because that's really the only way to do it. At that point your antiban (imo) should be centered around a concept like your hand getting tired from clicking the same spot.

    Anyway, the consensus we all seem to come to on these antiban threads is that the mouse stuff is pretty irrelevant, we should be focused on avoiding client detection/virtual click detection etc.

    If you are having ban problems it is probably unrelated to your mouse movements if you are being reasonably random on everything you do.
    I trained the skill legit for some time and it's pretty human like I think, thanks!
    The only way to see if my script is good enough is to use it I guess


    Quote Originally Posted by the bank View Post
    Even more so than this, I believe our primary focus should be their server sided heuristics, which they have said themselves are the backbone of their system. Infact accounts recently banned in their bot banning livestreams were all caught via their "heuristics". As I've discussed with others, much of the academia around anti-cheat technology is centered on server-side heuristics (or analyzation) of player data.

    You don't need to know how their heuristics work to defeat them, your bot just needs to act human.

    Here are some examples:
    • Intervals between actions
    • Path repetition
    • Unrealistic play time
    • Perfect accuracy


    Defeat their heuristics, and you are on a very solid track of remaining undetectable.
    'Perfect accuracy' as in always clicking the same point or never miss clicking?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    483
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Quoted
    328 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DonVitoCorleone View Post
    'Perfect accuracy' as in always clicking the same point or never miss clicking?
    Both, which is why it was left so ambiguous. Accuracy can be applied to many aspects of the game, and a human accuracy is never perfect. If you are doing something that can be messed up, you should allow your script to mess it up.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    126
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Quoted
    37 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by the bank View Post
    Both, which is why it was left so ambiguous. Accuracy can be applied to many aspects of the game, and a human accuracy is never perfect. If you are doing something that can be messed up, you should allow your script to mess it up.
    I'll pay attention to it, thanks!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •