• HouseWolf@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    66
    ·
    8 months ago

    As long as they don’t touch BF1 and earlier I’m still fine.

    Still think server side anti cheat is the ONLY way to combat cheaters at this point. All client side efforts (even kernel level) have been bypassed and hardware cheating devices running outside of the computer are becoming VERY common.

    • warm@kbin.earth
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      51
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Kernel level AC has got to go, any sort of invasive AC does.

      • HouseWolf@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        That we totally agree on.

        Just saying security/privacy issues aside these types of anti cheat don’t actually help as much as some people hope in combatting cheaters.

        • warm@kbin.earth
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          8 months ago

          Yup. But its the latest ‘buzzword’ in anti-cheat, so we keep getting more of them instead of time being spent developing other potential solutions.

      • thantik@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        With cheaters now using DMA to read memory locations on secondary computers, what’s your suggested solution? A great many people can go “this bad, don’t do this”…

        Great. Fine. Don’t do this – then suggest something we do instead.

        • warm@kbin.earth
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          What do you think, considering I was replying to a comment with a proposed solution?

            • teawrecks
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              10
              ·
              8 months ago

              Why are you asking some rando in a gaming forum? You don’t need to be a security expert to know that you don’t want any random app having kernel level access to your devices just to play a game. It doesn’t take a security expert to know that. The purpose of pointing it out isn’t that we know what the best solution is, it’s to tell studios that this solution isn’t the holy grail they act like it is.

              • warm@kbin.earth
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                They are just looking for an argument/confrontation. It’s why I didn’t respond further.

    • lorty@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      8 months ago

      Server side AC works well enough but as league demonstrates, it’s not a silver bullet.

      • warm@kbin.earth
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        League has a much bigger problem with smurfs and toxic behaviour than it does cheaters to be fair. Adding kernel anticheat to it is strange. There’s lots of account buying, sharing, win trading etc that is more prevalent and something vanguard cant fix, but Riot have never been good at focusing their efforts.

      • JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        I don’t know how it is now, but when I played league in the beta and for 4 years afterwards, I only ever saw 1 cheater.

        Player toxicity was off the damn charts, but still not much of a cheating problem. Might be very different now though.

    • Sina@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      I don’t think they care, they just want to siphon your data freely given.