Comment on Glorious Victory

• Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Imagine doing this for all kinds of stuff like ads, over priced groceries, other games that required needless launchers

  source

  • barsquid@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    If people were capable of choosing long over short term value then the market might be working instead of the shitshow it is right now. IDGI either.

    source
• xep@fedia.io ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  It's almost as if cheaters ruin hyper competitive games like Valorant.

  source

  • nekusoul@lemmy.nekusoul.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    I’d have a bit more symphaty if they at least tried to do the bare minimum before choosing the nuclear option.

    Most notably, the PVE queues in LoL were infested with bots for years and you could tell them apart from real players before they even made their first move. Often times you’d be the only human player. If stuff like that wasn’t caught, I have serious doubts about their previous efforts to catch “real” cheaters.

    source

    • aksdb@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Also there could (and should?) be “simply” two launch options. One with “hardcore anti cheat” and one with some much simpler anti-cheat. Then a lobby option what you want to allow. You want to play competitive/league/whatever? Then require the hardcore anti-cheat. Otherwise: why bother.

      source

      • nekusoul@lemmy.nekusoul.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        Yup. At the very least, they shouldn’t have made it a requirement for TFT. If it were possible to cheat there that’d be more of a game design problem anyway.

        source
  • OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Server side anticheat

    source

    • PlexSheep@infosec.pub ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Besides that, statistics is an unbeatable tool against cheaters.

      source

      • Sonotsugipaa@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        Agreed. For detecting cheaters, statistics work like a Dream

        source
      • aksdb@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        Only if you want to cap the skill limit. Otherwise you would typically have a hand full of players that are genuinely just good or rather far outside the normal skill range. I guess with a lot of data collection one might be able to determine if there was some kind of natual progress or sudden skill jumps, but all in all it could weed out legitimate players.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • Allero@lemmy.today ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Honestly I’d rather have a cheater in my lobby than Riot Games deep into the sections of my PC they should never have accessed.

    With that said, I do not play Valorant for this reason (and also because it would require me to dualboot since Vanguard cannot be ported on Linux, lol)

    source
  • Jako301@feddit.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    I’d be somewhat ok with Kernel anticheat if they would work, but the simple truth is that they do nothing of value. COD has Kernel anticheat with Riccochet and is flooded with cheaters. Valorant has only slightly less cause riot updates Vanguard more often.

    But guess what, it usually takes 1-2 days for new cheats to reach the relevant forums, maybe a few days more until they are more widely aviable. At most cheaters have to spend another 5€ every 6 months, but that’s it. They don’t care, the amount of money spent on accounts every other month is already way higher.

    The only two things anticheat like vanguard protects you from is script kiddies that google “valorant cheat .exe” and Linux only players. And the former could just as well be filtered out without Kernel level.

    source