> The client needs to know positions because it has accurate sounds of gunshots that vary in direction and intensity depending on where the shooter is. Sometime

> The client needs to know positions because it has accurate sounds of gunshots that vary in direction and intensity depending on where the shooter is. Sometimes the enemy may have a very powerful sniper where they can see you but you probably can't see them - yet the client needs to know. Sure, but both of these can be checked server side. The server can just tell the client "gunshot with $weapon from x/y/z" without compromising any more information. Just the same with the sniper - player has $weapon and looks with vector x1/y1/z1 from point x2/y2/z2? Now we can send the data of $player2 and $player3. Depending on how involved this should be one can even check for rough line of sight depending on terrain etc. I know that this is very sophisticated server side logic, but client side anticheat requires sophistication of similar complexity. In my eyes, when a publisher tells us "we have to have client side anticheat" it's mostly because they're taking the lazy, sometimes borderline-placebo way (good for you if it works for your games, I'm not saying it's not) > And it is very clear they are cheating if you watch a replay, because they will e.g run across the map with no fear when no one is around, slow down near enemies, walk into an empty compound and grenade the precise room someone is in who they never spotted. Sounds like an easy job for some poor outsourced slaves in $developing_country. I agree that checking for radar/walls is nearly impossible to achieve with purely electronic measures. In CS they introduced the overwatch system for this purpose, where reports result in the demo being anonymized and presented to other players who can review fishy demos and determine wether someone is cheating or not. I personally would've liked them to not task the community with this. > More subtle cases are possible too, where it is possible to be fairly sure someone is cheating only after watching many replays. If it's that difficult for a human, I can accept it may be near impossible for a computer. So if you can't tell if someone is cheating if you're watching the demo, how is this not falling under original point 2? Apart from the ethical argument of a level playing field and a fair match, how is it different for you if the other guy is just better than you in contrast with him maybe cheating when watching his last ten games? > I think Epic is right to limit Linux when it could result in an influx of more cheaters, has a low market share, and high fragmentation that makes it expensive to develop for. > Even if they disagree with Epic's reasoning, Epic is free to hold different opinions and do what they like. Overall, I feel it's ridiculous for users of any niche to feel _entitled_ to having a company serve them and get mad when they don't. That is like elevating the ability to play a specific game to the same standards as a critical service like healthcare or a constitutional right. I did not say they're wrong either, I gave no comment on restricting platforms that allow for general purpose computing. They can of course do that if they want. My whole commentary is on the ways a provider can provide anti cheating measures and how I think that an aggressive client control is not the right way. In my eyes, when you have issues with cheaters in your games despite the extremely aggressive measures taken by $provider, you should maybe start blaming that provider for cheaping out on humans to help get their problem under control. I also don't quite understand why you would keep playing games that are "ruined" for you. I usually play games because it brings me joy, not because I want to worry and get worked up.