>This is a huge leap. Who said their entire argument is based on winning vs losing? Losing can be fun, it's not the same thing. I think this is a key differenc

>This is a huge leap. Who said their entire argument is based on winning vs losing? Losing can be fun, it's not the same thing. I think this is a key difference of opinion we have here. I enjoy the challenge of trying to beat people in games, and failure obviously gives it that challenge. That being said, there's a point where there's a big enough skill difference that it is practically impossible to win against another player. This is what I'm mostly arguing here. I see the management of cheaters as the same problem as the management of overly skilled players being matched against those who aren't. Go look at some pro CSGO players for example, their performance is sometimes almost indistinguishable from cheating. > Being beaten by a hacker with super-human reaction speed and is completely unkillable is experience ruining. Doesn't Fortnite immediately let you enter a new match? How likely are you to encounter new cheaters long enough for the experience to get tedious? Why is suing cheaters a more fair solution to the problem of reducing this probability vs figuring out how to ban the specific cheats that have the largest userbase? Banning cheats in general is hard problem. Banning specific cheats is often not (barring crazy shit like the cheat running at hypervisor level).