[Spoon Feed Me] Adjusting Speed Hacks Velocity?

[Sychotix]

Unlike most of these people, I will actually explain what you are doing =P

You are changing the assembly code. You are overwriting the jump that (i guess?) checks something about your characters speed. Overwriting this jump will cause it to always execute the code below it (but it will also execute the junk code that you are overwriting it with). One way to fix this is to edit the value stored in the register that the jump uses for its check [pure speculation as I do not know how this jump works, nor play wow anymore].

For more information on stuff like this, check out the memory editing section. HOWEVER, I do not recommend that you make any sort of post unless you have done an extensive google search, along with a search of the forums, in order to satisfy the higher intellect requirement of the section.

[Norus]

You are changing the assembly code. You are overwriting the jump that (i guess?) checks something about your characters speed. Overwriting this jump will cause it to always execute the code below it (but it will also execute the junk code that you are overwriting it with). One way to fix this is to edit the value stored in the register that the jump uses for its check [pure speculation as I do not know how this jump works, nor play wow anymore].

From memory, this jump is executed at each frame to check if the time elapsed since the previous frame exceed 250ms, which case a CMSG_MOVE_TIME_SKIPPED packet is sent to correct the remote timestamp, most likely to avoid lag d/cs.
However if you overwrite the jump, a CMSG_MOVE_TIME_SKIPPED packet - with an unusual negative value as argument (also know as the "ImSpeedhackingPleaseBanMe" packet) - is sent at every frame (that's why a too high fps is poorly suited), making each frame virtually 250ms apart, regardless of the actual deviation.
In my case the actual sampling rate is ~15ms, so that's 250/15 = ~17times faster

So, to answer your question, a quick solution would be to substitute 250 (0x0FA) with a greater/lowest value, but this is neither the best nor the safest way to make a speedhack imo. (especially since everybody knows about it)

[run32.dll]

So, to answer your question, a quick solution would be to substitute 250 (0x0FA) with a greater/lowest value, but this is neither the best nor the safest way to make a speedhack imo. (especially since everybody knows about it)

I was thinking about this for some time with my terrible brainlag ... but to achieve *fake low fps* I'd say you have to modify EDI before this "cmp edi,000000FA"-line gets executed. EDI should be the time in ms that was required to render the last frame. Keep in mind there is an address scanned by warden nearby.

hmm both ways would probably work somehow - EDI must be increased or 0xFA decreased

Nopt's text made me curious - will do some testing using a trailaccount.

[Randomizer]

Thank you all for these posts as they were very informative. I am off to use these suggestions and go abuse almighty google to help educate myself. I really appreciate the point in the correct direction! If anyone has anything else to add, it is always appreciated!