3 ms·

There's a very simple solution for the anti-cheat problem: make Linux users play only with each other (this also applies to other platform users who refuse to r

by devit 5y ago

There's a very simple solution for the anti-cheat problem: make Linux users play only with each other (this also applies to other platform users who refuse to run the anti-cheat). I'm quite skeptical about their argument though, since on Windows you can also disable secure boot and then run a custom kernel or a custom hypervisor, so it's only valid if their anti-cheat rejects all Windows hypervisors and also checks the integrity of the Windows kernel (in this case it's still of course not secure, but the anti-cheat itself would need to be patched to defeat it).

stevewodil 5y ago
That is not a solution to anti cheat in the slightest. What if I want to play with my friends who aren’t on Linux? Oops we removed cross platform capabilities. Also making all the players who can’t run anti cheat play together means almost any individual non-cheating player will be overrun by the cheaters and essentially pushed out of the game.
- devit 5y ago
  > What if I want to play with my friends who aren’t on Linux? Oops we removed cross platform capabilities. You can play with them just fine, but if you use match making you would only be matched with other groups where there is at least one person running Linux. > Also making all the players who can’t run anti cheat play together means almost any individual non-cheating player will be overrun by the cheaters and essentially pushed out of the game. Just because people can cheat doesn't mean they will in significant enough numbers. Also the so-called "cheating" is just a perfectly normal way to use a general-purpose computer to run code of your choosing and to automate tasks, so you can do it as well if you want, and it's perfectly normal that if you refuse to automate your performance may suffer since you are using an inferior strategy.
  - quocanh 5y ago
    It doesn't have to be significant. Just having 1 hacker in the 100 PLAYERS PER LOBBY will ruin the game - there will be no chance of a legitimate player winning, ever. Games have been abandoned even though companies actively catch cheaters because no one wants to play against someone with an unfair advantage. If Epic releases a game where they literally cannot catch cheaters, that game will be abandoned in a week. Your defense of cheating is laughable. People are trying to play a game with a closed set of rules. Saying that your hacks are legal because they're turing-complete is completely nonsensical. You are not playing the same game that people signed up for. You're hijacking someone else's enjoyment for your own power fantasies.
    - michaelmrose 5y ago
      You are quite right about cheaters but the idea that a game is either 100% free of cheaters or abandoned in a week doesn't seem tenable. If it was virtually 100% of anti cheat would be server side which is much closer to 100% effective.
  - stevewodil 5y ago
    > Also the so-called "cheating" is just a perfectly normal way to use a general-purpose computer to run code of your choosing and to automate tasks, so you can do it as well if you want Please nobody put this guy in charge of anti-cheat for any game I play

by devit 5y ago

stevewodil 5y ago

That is not a solution to anti cheat in the slightest. What if I want to play with my friends who aren’t on Linux? Oops we removed cross platform capabilities. Also making all the players who can’t run anti cheat play together means almost any individual non-cheating player will be overrun by the cheaters and essentially pushed out of the game.

devit 5y ago
> What if I want to play with my friends who aren’t on Linux? Oops we removed cross platform capabilities. You can play with them just fine, but if you use match making you would only be matched with other groups where there is at least one person running Linux. > Also making all the players who can’t run anti cheat play together means almost any individual non-cheating player will be overrun by the cheaters and essentially pushed out of the game. Just because people can cheat doesn't mean they will in significant enough numbers. Also the so-called "cheating" is just a perfectly normal way to use a general-purpose computer to run code of your choosing and to automate tasks, so you can do it as well if you want, and it's perfectly normal that if you refuse to automate your performance may suffer since you are using an inferior strategy.
- quocanh 5y ago
  It doesn't have to be significant. Just having 1 hacker in the 100 PLAYERS PER LOBBY will ruin the game - there will be no chance of a legitimate player winning, ever. Games have been abandoned even though companies actively catch cheaters because no one wants to play against someone with an unfair advantage. If Epic releases a game where they literally cannot catch cheaters, that game will be abandoned in a week. Your defense of cheating is laughable. People are trying to play a game with a closed set of rules. Saying that your hacks are legal because they're turing-complete is completely nonsensical. You are not playing the same game that people signed up for. You're hijacking someone else's enjoyment for your own power fantasies.
  - michaelmrose 5y ago
    You are quite right about cheaters but the idea that a game is either 100% free of cheaters or abandoned in a week doesn't seem tenable. If it was virtually 100% of anti cheat would be server side which is much closer to 100% effective.
- stevewodil 5y ago
  > Also the so-called "cheating" is just a perfectly normal way to use a general-purpose computer to run code of your choosing and to automate tasks, so you can do it as well if you want Please nobody put this guy in charge of anti-cheat for any game I play