71–80 of 197 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cheats run on the cheater's machine, not on the other players' machines. Of course the cheater would always click accept because it's not an accident that the cheat is running on their machine.
It's not the cheat that has to be accepted, it is the game. The option prevents the cheats (or any other program) from being able to examine the game's memory.
I originally created the site as a way to track which games would be supported on Linux, since at the time the Steam Deck was releasing, and some games were turning to support it. And it has since blossomed into a larger project, which some other tools even pull from! I would have never even imagined that when I first started making this.
I do want to address something I see being talked about in the comments, which is the fact people say that anti-cheats are snake oil, or useless. This is a big misunderstanding, and I feel like those more technically inclined should understand that anti-cheat is a "defense-in-depth" type of approach. Where it is just one of many lines of defense. Some anti-cheats are pretty useless, and don't do much, but some actually do try and protect the game you're playing. But, just like DRM, it can be cracked, and that's why it's more of a constant arms race, rather than a one and done thing.
I'm writing out a longer post about this for the future, but just know that without anti-cheat clientside, it would be far too easy for an attacker to cheat in these games. We're still ways out from letting AI (see VACnet [1] and and Anybrain [2]) determine if someone is cheating server-side, so for now we have to rely on heavier client-side techniques and server-side decision making.
Also if anyone has questions about the site (or for me), I'll try to answer them here when I see them. If not, have a nice day!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not the cheat that has to be accepted, it is the game. The option prevents the cheats (or any other program) from being able to examine the game's memory.
Because the user controls their own machine, so they can open a hex editor and turn your option off.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cheats run on the cheater's machine, not on the other players' machines. Of course the cheater would always click accept because it's not an accident that the cheat is running on their machine.
It's not the cheat that has to be accepted, it is the game. The option prevents the cheats (or any other program) from being able to examine the game's memory.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But are cheaters even an issue in unpopular games that don't give out real money for tournaments ? I have never seen cheaters being an issue (even the few times people set up tournaments with prizes), which makes me think that this might be limited to very few games (in very specific genres) ?
> But are cheaters even an issue in unpopular games Yes. Every game has cheats. The cheat packages are pretty easy to adapt to new games and people pay money for them. Why do people cheat? Because it’s fun! If you’ve never cheated it’s honestly worth trying. It’s hilarious. It also utterly ruins the game for everyone else in the lobby. If games had reliable anti-cheat you’d be shocked at the percentage of lobbies tha…
But a lot of games do also have accessible to everyone replays that show every order given by every player, so catching a cheater that acted on information not available to them (because for instance they had buddies in other team(s)) isn't particularly hard, especially in tournaments with a lot of eyeballs on those replays.
And one thing the devs could do without Anti-Cheat, is to automate analysis of e. g. head shot rate, movement speed, etc. but most games not do that. If average player make 25 Kills per hour in a game and some 150 over longer periods i did not need an anti cheat to do something.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But are cheaters even an issue in unpopular games Yes. Every game has cheats. The cheat packages are pretty easy to adapt to new games and people pay money for them. Why do people cheat? Because it’s fun! If you’ve never cheated it’s honestly worth trying. It’s hilarious. It also utterly ruins the game for everyone else in the lobby. If games had reliable anti-cheat you’d be shocked at the percentage of lobbies tha…
I'm not talking about developer tools - cheats that come with the game, available in single player (and multiplayer if the host allows it). But a lot of games do also have accessible to everyone replays that show every order given by every player, so catching a cheater that acted on information not available to them (because for instance they had buddies in other team(s)) isn't particularly hard, especially in tourna…
At scale it’s incredibly hard. Impossibly hard even. So hard no one has successfully solved it! Ever!
But what you’re describing is Valve’s Overwatch system for Counter-Strike. It’s a key component of the anti-cheat ecosystem. But cheating is still rampant in CS and one of the biggest complaints.
Anti-Cheat will not help, if the games not Update it for more than 8 month. And one thing the devs could do without Anti-Cheat, is to automate analysis of e. g. head shot rate, movement speed, etc. but most games not do that. If average player make 25 Kills per hour in a game and some 150 over longer periods i did not need an anti cheat to do something.