It's almost as if cheaters ruin hyper competitive games like Valorant.
Comment on Glorious Victory
aksdb@lemmy.world 7 months agoUhhhh, people install shit like Vanguard just so that they can keep having their mother insulted in the ingame chat.
And many people put up with cascades of different lauchers (and accounts).
So I am glad that there was some push back this time, but it’s not like there would be some sane baseline of PC players in that regard.
xep@fedia.io 7 months ago
nekusoul@lemmy.nekusoul.de 7 months 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.
aksdb@lemmy.world 7 months 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.
nekusoul@lemmy.nekusoul.de 7 months 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.
OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml 7 months ago
Server side anticheat
PlexSheep@infosec.pub 7 months ago
Besides that, statistics is an unbeatable tool against cheaters.
Sonotsugipaa@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 months ago
Agreed. For detecting cheaters, statistics work like a Dream
aksdb@lemmy.world 7 months 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.
Allero@lemmy.today 7 months 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)
Jako301@feddit.de 7 months 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.
Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Imagine doing this for all kinds of stuff like ads, over priced groceries, other games that required needless launchers
barsquid@lemmy.world 7 months 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.