• Glide@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    122
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    How much less bullshit PC players are willing to put up with compared to their console counterparts, apparently.

    • aksdb@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      65
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Uhhhh, 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.

      • Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

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

        Just surprising how this works so often and every time there are still people trying to convince everyone to just move on.

        • barsquid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          8 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.

      • xep@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        38
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        It’s almost as if cheaters ruin hyper competitive games like Valorant. How dare they try to keep the game free from cheaters. The nerve!

        • OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          19
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          As someone who rehosts an old game after the official servers shutdown, we have a dedicated servers for cheating and real moderators for the non-cheat ones. It works great but big corps don’t way to pay for mods.

          I also wonder why big companies don’t do it to train ML algorithms on the cheat server data too…

            • aksdb@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              8 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.

              • PlexSheep@infosec.pub
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                You can detect the hit ratio for shooters and win rates for games with matchmaking, those are really good indicators for cheating.

        • NekuSoul@lemmy.nekusoul.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          8 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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 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
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              8 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.

        • Allero@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          8 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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 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.