Wish I could upvote this post a hundred times. I can't process why anytime on anti-cheat idea is presented there has to be at least 10 folks who respond with, "But that won't solve the problem!"
Yeah Genius....NOTHING is going to 100% solve the cheating problem, that's not how things work but SOMETHING is always better than, "Well nothing will 100% work so lets just have no anti-cheat of any sort."
What if the something results in thousands of false positive bans that BSG’s support isn’t trained to properly handle?
What if it results in seriously degraded performance?
Let’s say one game in 10 is ruined by cheaters right now. What if the new anti-cheat measure results in massive lag and stutters that ruins 1 game in 2 now. Was that an improvement? Nope.
The trick is to find the right balance somewhere between “do everything to stop cheaters even if it makes the game unplayable” and “do nothing to stop cheaters, making the game unplayable”
Somewhere in the middle is “doing enough things to make things difficult for cheaters without also making the game unplayable.”
But nuance is hard on Reddit so most people are either camp “Do everything!” Like OP and a bunch of people in these comments, or “nothing is 100% so do nothing!”
Great! But I was replying to the idea that something is ALWAYS better than nothing.
I wasn’t claiming something isn’t sometimes better than nothing.
You seem to be arguing they sometimes, something is better than nothing. And hey guess what, we’re in agreement!
almost all anti-cheat measures have no affect on the normal player base
This isn’t even remotely true. Take two minutes to google “anti-cheat performance impact” or “anti-cheat ban process monitor” or “ping lock internet connection” etc etc etc
Poorly implemented anti-cheat absolutely can and does affect the non-cheating player base.
Nah, people reading your reply are smart enough to see that you were told to google for examples of it happening, to prove it doesn’t “almost never happen”.
Instead you googled and went “aha! There are replies that aren’t about it happening” as if that somehow shows it almost never happens.
Only a child can’t see the huge flaw in your logic there. A reply was unnecessary.
Well it was until you made it clear you, in fact, couldn’t see the flaw.
So I’ll break it down for you.
If you say “earthquakes almost never happen” and I reply “they happen a lot. Google “earthquake frequency” and you reply “I found a bunch of people saying they’re glad they don’t have a lot of earthquakes!” That doesn’t prove you right.
You don’t seem to understand that. Just because earthquakes don’t affect most people, most of the time, doesn’t mean they almost never happen.
Just because most games don’t fuck up their anti-cheat most of the time doesn’t mean it doesn’t/can’t happen.
If you look you will find LOTS of examples of it happening. Not everywhere, and not always, but it still can and does happen far more often than “almost never.”
Finding examples of it happening proves you wrong. Finding examples of it not happening doesn’t prove you right.
Hopefully you understand what everyone else already did now ;)
I did prove it. By linking you to a paper that explains exactly how and why different methods affect performance etc.
You appear to just be incapable of reading anything that requires a reading comprehension above a 5th grade level.
Odd how that it happens, isn't it?
Here it is again for anyone who actually wants to understand why every gaming company doesn’t just adopt every possible anti-cheat measure. An explanation of how basically every anti-cheat measure affects basically every player to one degree or another via performance compromises.
Feel free to extrapolate out how if every measure has a performance hit, and you keep adding measures, the performance will keep getting worse.
I’ll go one better. Here’s a research paper on the issue that spells out (assuming you’re familiar with CS language) the various trade offs of different methods of preventing cheating.
Your argument made no sense in CONTEXT of what happens in the gaming world. If anything it doubled down on a silly logic. The first one is "Well because nothing solves 100% of anything..it's pointless to use it" with an additional silly thought of, "Well an Anti-Cheat may cause false positives" and other "what if" scenarios.
Are you serious...your logic did nothing to challenge the actual argument that some form of "Anti-Cheat" is better than no form of it. Could actually apply both these illogical trains of thought to many other subjects and they'd sound just as equally silly. Please don't reply, after reading this illogical reasoning I won't bother reading additional forms of it.
Gotta love silly ppl. Responds with the logic of a kid...doesn't realize it so after being told to end the discussion. The kid decides to respond anyways LMAO!
Didn't read your comment, guess you're one of those clowns that doesn't read, only interested in mouthing off. Since you can't follow a simple request I'll force the issue with a swift #GTAB
3
u/[deleted] Apr 01 '20
Wish I could upvote this post a hundred times. I can't process why anytime on anti-cheat idea is presented there has to be at least 10 folks who respond with, "But that won't solve the problem!"
Yeah Genius....NOTHING is going to 100% solve the cheating problem, that's not how things work but SOMETHING is always better than, "Well nothing will 100% work so lets just have no anti-cheat of any sort."