2 ms·

> adjust accuracy of your auto-shoot from 100% to 85% or whatever Sure - looking at K/D, accuracy, etc., is an important factor in a statistical model. Statis

> adjust accuracy of your auto-shoot from 100% to 85% or whatever Sure - looking at K/D, accuracy, etc., is an important factor in a statistical model. Statistics can also include: Map name, player transform on the map, keyboard and mouse events, GPU utilization, audio playback events, etc. These are all very high information time domain signals that can be correlated with the same from any other player. After a certain point, I don't think it matters if it is publicly known what your signals are. The amount of information becomes overwhelming in aggregate. You can impose the curse of dimensionality on the cheater.

qualeed 1y ago
>Statistics can also include: Map name, player transform on the map, keyboard and mouse events, GPU utilization, audio playback events, etc. These are all very high information time domain signals that can be correlated with the same from any other player. I don't think these are the type of stats the parent was referring to when they said "If someone at Valve had taken 10 seconds to review my stats". But sure, those are all examples of statistics to start logging, analyzing, and cross-referencing. (I would argue most of the statistics you listed are of little to no use in identifying false-positives (or good cheaters), but I understand the point you're making with those examples.) It would maybe reduce the false positive rate by some amount at an increased monetary (and complexity) cost to themselves. I think it would be well past the point of diminishing returns though. Setting up all the infrastructure, policy, processes just to reduce false-positive rates by a few percent, maybe? I think I'll stand by "that's unreasonable" and "cheaters will game the statistics".