4 ms·

This is a feature! You and the other cheaters, whether you're actually baby or bathwater, will simply have to buy it again!! IMO the only winning move is not t

This is a feature! You and the other cheaters, whether you're actually baby or bathwater, will simply have to buy it again!! IMO the only winning move is not to play. I loved calladoody back in university, but you've got to move with the times, yeah? OTOH, I'm not the one who really changed; I'm still all about dedicated servers, but they haven't been seen since Modern Warfare 1. The winning move for the anticheat dev is shortly going to be not to play, either. It's one thing to implement increasingly invasive rootkits to find out who's watching your game's memory, but I've heard tell of devices that sit between the PC and monitor, using specialized ML to click M1 and fire when an enemy is detected in one's crosshairs. How can you check for something like that?

Gigachad 4y ago
>How can you check for something like that? I've heard of work around using machine learning to analyze players and compare them to the actions of cheaters. It's not flawless but it can give some kind of probability of cheating so you can match make cheaters with other suspected cheaters.
- 0x0000000 4y ago
  CSGO does this very well to my understanding.
  - mrguyorama 4y ago
    Ah yes, vacnet, which couldn't even reliably ban spin-botters for YEARS. Vacnet is an abysmal failure and should be seen as such. The game is still brimming with cheaters, and you still basically cannot play a game on valve's official servers with high ratings unless you are willing to get matched with a cheater 1 out of 3 times and waste hours on unwinnable games that you get punished for abandoning.
- revolvingocelot 4y ago
  Then we still end up here: someone who's naturally skilled gets some lucky kills, and the Computer Says No, so now he's out a game license. Appealing modern anticheat decisions is hard enough, but once it's less "the computer noticed your memory-editing" and more "the computer decided you need to be banned", it'll be impossible. TFA seems to suggest that future is Real Soon, if not now. So go play games with dedicated servers, and local admins who can only locally ban anyone suspect. If players don't like it they can leave for another dedicated server.
  - Gigachad 4y ago
    This is currently very common for chess. Comparing players with AI decisions. It's less "You got lucky today, you're banned" and more "your movements matched up with AI patterns for a long time, so you're trust score has been lowered and you'll be put with other low trust players for a while". There is more data than just win/lose here. Using ML you can analyze exactly how the player moves, etc and get some kind of probability
    - revolvingocelot 4y ago
      Hey, you'd better go let OP know that everything's OK! Me, I think that chess, a turn-based, 2D game which uses the same "map" every time, might have a few fewer inputs to analyze than an FPS, but what do I know.
- xeyownt 4y ago
  Wow. So you are a good player, and you are matched against cheaters. What a justice. I don't understand this practice. Playing against cheaters, or being treated like one, what's worse?
  - Gigachad 4y ago
    It’s not about being a good player, they have datasets on how good players play, and datasets on how bots play. AI is extremely good at noticing patterns in complex data. It could be the way you move the mouse, cheaters might react to events with consistent timings while humans have more variability.

Gigachad 4y ago

>How can you check for something like that? I've heard of work around using machine learning to analyze players and compare them to the actions of cheaters. It's not flawless but it can give some kind of probability of cheating so you can match make cheaters with other suspected cheaters.

0x0000000 4y ago
CSGO does this very well to my understanding.
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  Ah yes, vacnet, which couldn't even reliably ban spin-botters for YEARS. Vacnet is an abysmal failure and should be seen as such. The game is still brimming with cheaters, and you still basically cannot play a game on valve's official servers with high ratings unless you are willing to get matched with a cheater 1 out of 3 times and waste hours on unwinnable games that you get punished for abandoning.
revolvingocelot 4y ago
Then we still end up here: someone who's naturally skilled gets some lucky kills, and the Computer Says No, so now he's out a game license. Appealing modern anticheat decisions is hard enough, but once it's less "the computer noticed your memory-editing" and more "the computer decided you need to be banned", it'll be impossible. TFA seems to suggest that future is Real Soon, if not now. So go play games with dedicated servers, and local admins who can only locally ban anyone suspect. If players don't like it they can leave for another dedicated server.
- Gigachad 4y ago
  This is currently very common for chess. Comparing players with AI decisions. It's less "You got lucky today, you're banned" and more "your movements matched up with AI patterns for a long time, so you're trust score has been lowered and you'll be put with other low trust players for a while". There is more data than just win/lose here. Using ML you can analyze exactly how the player moves, etc and get some kind of probability
  - revolvingocelot 4y ago
    Hey, you'd better go let OP know that everything's OK! Me, I think that chess, a turn-based, 2D game which uses the same "map" every time, might have a few fewer inputs to analyze than an FPS, but what do I know.
xeyownt 4y ago
Wow. So you are a good player, and you are matched against cheaters. What a justice. I don't understand this practice. Playing against cheaters, or being treated like one, what's worse?
- Gigachad 4y ago
  It’s not about being a good player, they have datasets on how good players play, and datasets on how bots play. AI is extremely good at noticing patterns in complex data. It could be the way you move the mouse, cheaters might react to events with consistent timings while humans have more variability.