139
Palworld studio admits it can't "keep up" with cheaters, says anti-cheat solution on the way
(www.eurogamer.net)
this post was submitted on 20 Feb 2024
139 points (94.3% liked)
Games
16943 readers
935 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Imo it really depends on the game, and how much cheating can actually effect things, and as time goes on and technology develops, it will only become more relevant. I remember a headline a while back about a monitor that used machine learning to track the enemy team in league of legends by "watching" the map, and marking whenever an enemy is crossing a ward.
Yeah cheating is a lot worse for competitive games than for casual games. For example, it doesn't matter how well you make a fps game, if every game has one cheater in it, no one will play your game. Cheating affects more casual games as well though, although it usually only affects the economy (eg. If someone gets infinite resources with cheats then the price of that resource will plummet).
Exactly this. Any game that even hopes to have a remotely decent competitive community needs to have a solid way of not just targeting cheaters after the fact, but in keeping them out of games. Because even if it's just something like 1 in 5 games being decided by cheats, if people become aware of it, any value people placed on a competitive ladder are going to evaporate overnight.
And for what it's worth, I fully support the ability to do things like local matches or private servers where anti cheat is partially or entirely disabled. I love modding and letting people play their own game their own way. But when it starts impacting other people's experiences, there need to be rules in place and enforced.
Oh, and for those people saying that no anti cheat should exist, go hop in an online match of splatoon 1 on Wii u, and honestly tell me if that's what you want out of a competitive game. Because that's what not targeting cheaters gets you
If the code used to cheat runs outside of the machine the game is running on - as in your example - kernel level anti-cheat won't even do anything. What's next then? Allowing the game (we are talking about games, I want to make that very clear) to whitelist/blacklist attached peripherals? "Ah, sorry, you can only play this game with Razer or Corsair mice, because your noname mouse might be injecting inputs from cheat software."
Client-side anti-cheat is like validating payloads on the client side in web apps. It won't stop people who really want to break your game. Stop running shitty software on my computer. Anti-cheat needs to be server side, with (probably "AI" based) pattern recognition. If a cheater is found with some degree of certainty, let a human review the footage. Yes, these human employees cost money, but this is just the cost of running a (competitive) multiplayer game.
Instead, game developers/publishers add a crappy anti-cheat software. It's cheaper, but it's also worse in terms of actually stopping cheating and in terms of security for the computer running the game.
The problem is that most cheating is subtle. Sure, theres the idiots who just throw every cheat in the book, but especially at higher levels where people care most about the integrity of the competition, cheating is a lot more subtle and within human limits, such that "I'm just that good" or "I got lucky" would be an entirely valid defense.
If you don't like anti-cheat, don't play games with it.
Sorry to say but there are already peripherals that are blocked by anti cheat. Back when I bought Rust, i learned the hard way that their anti cheat blocks Input from the steam controller.
That's insane.
I’m not certain how what you said debates the other comment at all. Like I get that Chester will get more advanced or whatever, but allowing kernel level garbage is not ok to me. No matter the circumstances.
I mean there's no point in debating in the first place if you've just drawn your line in the sand and don't give a fuck about anything else
"I don't want to hand over compete kernel and administrative control of my PC just to play a game" seems like a pretty reasonable line to draw.
If you like it, feel free. But it still isn't particularly conducive to debate if it's just your own line in the sand and you don't particularly care what anyone else thinks.
The purpose of debate isn't necessarily to convince the person your debating against. It also helps sway others who might be party to the discussion. Just because I have a line in the sand re: turning over control of my computer doesn't mean I can't debate that point and offer my own reasons for taking that position, while someone contrary to that can explain theirs. Neither participant in the debate needs to budge in their position, but by both offering their reasoning it may be useful in persuading others to one of their sides.