21–30 of 153 posts
I wonder if the anti-cheat system could insert ghost enemies for a few frames, or about 20-30ms, fast enough that humans wouldn't really notice. If players are shooting too often at ghosts, that may be a good reason to ban.
I was thinking about this the other day when I saw a YouTube Warzone stream lament that the game didn't have an anti-cheat system on the end users machine. I do wonder about the claim that it is undetectable though since a machine will be flawless where as even the best human players make mistakes.
I wonder if the anti-cheat system could insert ghost enemies for a few frames, or about 20-30ms, fast enough that humans wouldn't really notice. If players are shooting too often at ghosts, that may be a good reason to ban.
One may wonder what exactly is the point in a human watching this auto-playing game system, and whether they'd be better off watching a movie... But another way to look at it is as a preview of the future. Just picture this: a world of machines battling it out for supremacy, and somewhere off to the side there is an almost forgotten human brain. It seems to serve no discernible purpose, and yet it is actually the rea…
Cheats are about two things: money or prestige. People want to get back at the players who so rudely beat them normally, and get high competitive rankings that make them look better than other players in that games community. Or, they use the cheats to create high ranking game accounts to sell to players who want to look good, or they simply cheat to win prize money. It should go without saying that this kind of acti…
Imagine the same scenario, but in a higher-stakes environment than playing a game. Let's imagine there is a "leetcode aug" that lets one instantly pattern-match a problem and pumps a perfect solution into one's brain. That doesn't have to be very sophisticated AI. But once this kind of augmentation is available, the pressure is on for everyone to get it, or for the tech to be banned, or for the evaluation criteria to change.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
yeah no. A machine does not have motivation. It does not have urges and desires. It may solve a problem perfectly buy it’s gonna be a while until they can grok why solving problems is worthwhile to begin with.
That's the point: the AI in my imaginary world doesn't need desires. The human brain is acting as a "desire coprocessor".
I don’t know if that is better than the alternative ending, but it’s something to think about.
The irony is that real war with actual guns that kill people will likely have aimbots on small arms in the next decade.
I’m afraid you’ve been watching too many movies. This tech isn’t close to deployment for an infantryman.
I was amazed by this back then, there's probably better stuff by now: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/01/17000-linux-powered-...
These cheat tools could apparently be tuned to give extremely subtle advantages to players. Still, over a long enough time period the tool would eventually do something inexplicable enough by normal beahviour to give the player away. I haven't exactly kept up with competitive FPS in years now, however it doesn't seem hard to make aimbots that work well, it seems very difficult though to make ones that consistently appear natural to a trained eye.
The irony is that real war with actual guns that kill people will likely have aimbots on small arms in the next decade.
Game developers should stop trying to police this and let the bots fight each other. The game becomes, who can tune their bots better. Train the bots for team work or more strategic level play.
In the meantime, the rest of us can just enjoy some co-op gaming against some easy bots, or play competitive matches against just friends and family.
If some random person on your server is no fun to play again, just kick them.
If you are really into the competitive gaming and want to take the games more seriously, I'd like to see players go meet other players face to face. Join a local league and play on hardware you don't own with other people watching. I used to love playing Quake down at the local internet cafe with a bunch of friends. We had a small 4v4 league going.
I was thinking about this the other day when I saw a YouTube Warzone stream lament that the game didn't have an anti-cheat system on the end users machine. I do wonder about the claim that it is undetectable though since a machine will be flawless where as even the best human players make mistakes.
I think it's currently impossible to detect. I think it would be possible to detect if you used some kind of player profile where you characterized how a player moved and then were able to determine through a replay whether the profiles matched. However then you could program the cheat AI to mimic the real player etc, etc. But this would take several evolutions where each tech would be ahead of the other.
In my vision every game creates a model of your behavior/capabilities (server-side). For example, in a fps game it could consider your reaction times, overshoot distance on quick movements, look-around frequency, movement patterns, etc..
When you reach certain level you must certify yourself. That is, you must go to an actual physical location and play in a controlled environment. If your behavior there matches your model you get certified for that level of play and can keep going. If you don't... you get banned. Of course the model would track your progress and ask/force you to re-certify as you keep improving/reach the limits of your current certification.
Would this eliminate all cheats? Probably not. However, since you can't play outside of the standard deviation of your controlled-environment capabilities, I would argue that it doesn't matter anymore. To a honest player a cheater would look like "a player having a good day" (which is something that happens and you need to deal with anyway) instead of looking like "a player with superhuman capabilities".
The problem with this approach is how to build such controlled-environment certification centers and procedures. This is a big task, but also a big opportunity. It is not that much different from examination centers that already exist in the learning/certification industry.
Furthermore, since gaming is such a huge market (and growing) and certification centers don't need to be tied to specific games (they can be a service that games hire and people pay for) the whole ordeal seems doable. So doable in fact that I could see myself investing in a startup having this goal.