3 ms·
So, looking at Riot's anticheat for Valorant, they're generally considered to do a good job. Similarly for CSGO, FaceIT exists, and from what I've seen, is cons
by esyir 5y ago
So, looking at Riot's anticheat for Valorant, they're generally considered to do a good job. Similarly for CSGO, FaceIT exists, and from what I've seen, is considered a good, low-cheater environment.
The issue with CSGO was not that the methods were ineffective, but that it's a constant war. The moment the devs stop fighting, the cheaters can and will most definitely win. Valve gave up, so CSGO is cheater infested. FaceIt didn't, and thus is a better environment.
For paid games, there's a fun addon there. If cheaters have to buy a new account every time a ban hits, in theory, effective anticheat can subsidize it's own cost. The catch being that they'll then start using hacked accounts to cheat on.
Then 2FA comes in... Such is the rabbit hole of anticheat, there's always a next step. Somehow, cheating at games is a prime objective to far too many people.
- foxhill 5y agoValorant’s anti-cheat is considered to be good, but hacks are available. it’s also incredibly invasive - running in the kernel, meaning it must be enabled at boot time - something i don’t think is either necessary or desirable. faceit/esea isn’t much better. and i suspect it’s only better at all because of the higher barrier to entry. as for MFA - Trust takes this into account in determining its score. to stay on topic here, i think what i was originally trying to say was, yes, having humans in the mix for self-moderation is a good idea in principle. in practise, it’s easy to manipulate because it’s very hard, potentially even impossible, to determine if you actually have a human using the machine. well, except in china, i suppose. but i don’t think we want to live in that world :)