yeah, as enesce said it's a lot more complicated... for one anti-hacking systems already work by figuring out things that are out of their bounds. Enesce's new server can detect (i believe) to fast capping rates. That's basically measuring a "variable" to see if it's over its max. I mean that's just how anti-hacks work - they check if certain things are out of their value or they do check ups (like perhaps see how far someone moved in how long time - there isn't an actual variable for that but the server calculates that anyways). Other anti-hacks, i believe, work by letting the client's computer determine if he himself is hacking. That however is probably easier hacked. It really is hard to determine the difference between human and machine (ie: aimbots). There are more complicated methods for getting around this problem
ie: isntead of checking how realistically the person aims to make sure it's not an aimbot, the server can check if a certain program with a certain signature is running - or whether a certain part of the comp's memory is accessed by soldat itself or maybe by another program. But the server then has to indirectly ask the client's computer for info that the client may very well hide (hacking).
I know I probably shouldn't even be talking about how soldat's anti-hacks work since i really don't know - i just wanted to give an understandable example of why anti-hacking isn't the easiest thing as you're trying to suggest.
