> "The data based approach to cheating detection." I've been really impressed by this recently. Even in areas where it doesn't seem like it should be hard to

> "The data based approach to cheating detection." I've been really impressed by this recently. Even in areas where it doesn't seem like it should be hard to plausibly fake, it turns out there's a lot of subtlety that might be missed. Here, it was the checkpoint-by-checkpoint splits and the photographs. In a fake Minecraft game [0] it's the number of blocks that have been mined versus the materials available for building tools (if sticks are rare, you're not going to waste them making pickaxes to strip mine plain stone) and the number of structures that have been built (millions of blocks got mined, but not used?) I've thought about building a "wall transparency" detector for another video game that would track a player's orientation in relation to players behind a wall from them, profile the average player, and then show that certain players are able to track others through walls. There is an incredible amount of technical knowledge even in seemingly mundane pursuits like running. That's what makes it possible to spot cheats even without spotting the exact cheating mechanism. [0] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4413499 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4413499