Add randomisation to legit scaffold

[Aroze]

Messed around with legit scaffold for a bit and noticed it has literally no randomization, easiest shit to detect,

 

[Anonymous123]

isn't the min/max delay for randomization

 

[Aroze]

It seems like it's meant to be, but doesn't work very well, hella easy to detect:

 

[vec.]

Messed around with legit scaffold for a bit and noticed it has literally no randomization, easiest shit to detect,

it's undetectable lol

 

[Aroze]

okay but its not

 

[IncognitoDoge]

1. there is already randomizer for it
2. its not detectable something that just presses a key cant be taken by an anticheat too much room for false flags.

 

[Aroze]

1. there is already randomizer for it
2. its not detectable something that just presses a key cant be taken by an anticheat too much room for false flags.

I've tested it a lot; with any reasonable settings/as long as they're not too high (30-110ms, for example), the deviation between sneak times is literally 0 - compared to an average of 1.2-1.3 from trying to be as consistent as possible legit.

Even if I raise the accuracy to like 20 decimal places, the sneak deviation would come out as 0.000000000000000. There isn't a randomizer, or at least it doesn't work properly, it's very consistent, much more than a human could ever possibly be.

If you wanna give me your Discord or smth, I can ss and show you what I mean,

 

[rofl]

Nice way to false ban people.

The randomization is present to make it more "legit" not for detections methods. The legit scaffold isn't detectable.

 

[femboycock]

It seems like it's meant to be, but doesn't work very well, hella easy to detect:

very nice, i was waiting for someone to come up with this haha
so its like an autoclicker check but instead of clicks ur detecting shift delays very nice concept
and to people saying that this falses, please explain how someone's sneak delay deviation would be completely the same for an extended period of time?

 

[femboycock]

Your take is hot shit, you're literally using 34-80ms scaffold, ofc it doesn't randomise server-side because shift delay is calculated in ticks (50ms) so setting your min delay that low basically makes it look like that, and if you use a wider range theres an obv randomisation

I think you should learn math before saying anything.... Maybe take a course in Probability and Statistics

 

[Aroze]

Your take is hot shit, you're literally using 34-80ms scaffold, ofc it doesn't randomise server-side because shift delay is calculated in ticks (50ms) so setting your min delay that low basically makes it look like that, and if you use a wider range theres an obv randomisation

Yeahh, I realised that a bit later so sure, but still, extra randomization would be nice because nobody consistently shifts with the exact same tick delay for that long, and a lot of people use settings with a low delay,

 

[rofl]

Yeahh, I realised that a bit later so sure, but still, extra randomization would be nice because nobody consistently shifts with the exact same tick delay for that long,

It's already randomized if you didn't realize.

 

[Aroze]

It's already randomized if you didn't realize.

Mhm, I said extra randomization. As I said, any delay difference below 50ms will have the exact same in-game tick delay each time, and nobody can be that consistent for so long, might have some very rare falses but way less than you'd flag by legit scaffolding,

 

[vec.]

@Aroze stop being an idiot