5 ms·

Even if custom game servers were a preferable experience, which I would argue against, it doesn't really do anything for this problem. By the time you have to

Even if custom game servers were a preferable experience, which I would argue against, it doesn't really do anything for this problem. By the time you have to wait for someone to cheat just to ban a single user, the disruption is already done. Your 4v4 45min game is already disrupted and everyone has already wasted their time now that you have to kick someone. It's kind of like thinking you can forgo anti-bot measures because your website's users can just report the bots: by the time it's your users' problem, you've ruined the experience for everyone except the bots.

squigz 11mo ago
> By the time you have to wait for someone to cheat just to ban a single user, the disruption is already done. Your 4v4 45min game is already disrupted and everyone has already wasted their time now that you have to kick someone. The difference is there is usually an existing level of trust between people playing on a private server. Usually your group would know ahead of time if someone is going to potentially be a problem. Furthermore, even with public dedicated servers, there's a psychological aspect to it - it's no longer just a random matchmaking server; you're almost walking into someone's house. Many people feel a lot more pressure not to misbehave Then there's the fact that you don't have to wait many days for your cheating report to hopefully be acted on. Our game got interrupted? Well, that sucks, but we can just ban that guy and go again and we likely won't have to worry that our very next game will also contain a cheater Finally: these defences always have an implicit assumption with it: that the horribly pervasive anti-cheats actually... you know, work. They do, to a rather limited extent, but cheaters are still rampant, so what's the point?
- hombre_fatal 11mo ago
  If I already have a preformed 4v4, then I don't need anticheat. The question is what to do about the rest of the time for everyone else. Shopping around private servers and dealing with individual server admin quirks is a regression from matchmaking UX that Starcraft had in the late 90s or that Halo 2 had in the early 2000s.
  - squigz 11mo ago
    Why not both? If you wanna matchmake, great, go ahead. If you want to run a private server, you can do that too.
    - throw10920 11mo ago
      I'd love that. I bet that a lot of players would like having the choice, too. AND, data from a few months of a relatively popular game implementing this system should pretty much conclusively settle the question of whether competitive matchmade games should have anticheat.
chownie 11mo ago
I would much rather my 45 minute game be disrupted and the user booted permanently by moderators VS every game be disrupted for months while the developers try and work out which parts of my privacy they can invade to maybe hopefully boot the cheaters.
- isgb 11mo ago
  Problem is that requires moderators, that get paid, with money.
  - stronglikedan 11mo ago
    more likely volunteers when they're running their own servers
    - Kuinox 11mo ago
      volunteers which aren't necessarly pro player and cant distinguish good players from smart cheaters.
      - chownie 11mo ago
        The developers aren't pro players either, the cutting edge for anti-cheats still require that non-cheaters play with cheaters for months. I would not be shocked if simple vote-kick outperforms every anti-cheat on the market.
        Kuinox 11mo ago
        A simple vote-kick will kick, will kick so much players that doesn't cheat. It's already used to troll in games like CS.
  - Ygg2 11mo ago
    Not really. In mostly player-run lobbies, one of the players would kick any found cheaters. It's not exacts science, but it's what people did.
ratelimitsteve 11mo ago
counterpoint: my 45 min 4v4 game gets terminally disrupted if I can't run the game on my device
- hombre_fatal 11mo ago
  Sure, but that's a trade-off everyone already enjoying the game might be fine with if it means a better experience. That's how bad cheating is.
  - squigz 11mo ago
    > Sure, but that's a trade-off everyone already enjoying the game might be fine with if it means a better experience. Does it mean a better experience though? This isn't like, a theoretical GP is talking about. We don't have to imagine if > That's how bad cheating is. Seems like the answer is no?

squigz 11mo ago

> By the time you have to wait for someone to cheat just to ban a single user, the disruption is already done. Your 4v4 45min game is already disrupted and everyone has already wasted their time now that you have to kick someone. The difference is there is usually an existing level of trust between people playing on a private server. Usually your group would know ahead of time if someone is going to potentially be a problem. Furthermore, even with public dedicated servers, there's a psychological aspect to it - it's no longer just a random matchmaking server; you're almost walking into someone's house. Many people feel a lot more pressure not to misbehave Then there's the fact that you don't have to wait many days for your cheating report to hopefully be acted on. Our game got interrupted? Well, that sucks, but we can just ban that guy and go again and we likely won't have to worry that our very next game will also contain a cheater Finally: these defences always have an implicit assumption with it: that the horribly pervasive anti-cheats actually... you know, work. They do, to a rather limited extent, but cheaters are still rampant, so what's the point?

hombre_fatal 11mo ago
If I already have a preformed 4v4, then I don't need anticheat. The question is what to do about the rest of the time for everyone else. Shopping around private servers and dealing with individual server admin quirks is a regression from matchmaking UX that Starcraft had in the late 90s or that Halo 2 had in the early 2000s.
- squigz 11mo ago
  Why not both? If you wanna matchmake, great, go ahead. If you want to run a private server, you can do that too.
  - throw10920 11mo ago
    I'd love that. I bet that a lot of players would like having the choice, too. AND, data from a few months of a relatively popular game implementing this system should pretty much conclusively settle the question of whether competitive matchmade games should have anticheat.

chownie 11mo ago

I would much rather my 45 minute game be disrupted and the user booted permanently by moderators VS every game be disrupted for months while the developers try and work out which parts of my privacy they can invade to maybe hopefully boot the cheaters.

isgb 11mo ago
Problem is that requires moderators, that get paid, with money.
- stronglikedan 11mo ago
  more likely volunteers when they're running their own servers
  - Kuinox 11mo ago
    volunteers which aren't necessarly pro player and cant distinguish good players from smart cheaters.
    - chownie 11mo ago
      The developers aren't pro players either, the cutting edge for anti-cheats still require that non-cheaters play with cheaters for months. I would not be shocked if simple vote-kick outperforms every anti-cheat on the market.
      - Kuinox 11mo ago
        A simple vote-kick will kick, will kick so much players that doesn't cheat. It's already used to troll in games like CS.
- Ygg2 11mo ago
  Not really. In mostly player-run lobbies, one of the players would kick any found cheaters. It's not exacts science, but it's what people did.

ratelimitsteve 11mo ago

counterpoint: my 45 min 4v4 game gets terminally disrupted if I can't run the game on my device

hombre_fatal 11mo ago
Sure, but that's a trade-off everyone already enjoying the game might be fine with if it means a better experience. That's how bad cheating is.
- squigz 11mo ago
  > Sure, but that's a trade-off everyone already enjoying the game might be fine with if it means a better experience. Does it mean a better experience though? This isn't like, a theoretical GP is talking about. We don't have to imagine if > That's how bad cheating is. Seems like the answer is no?