Matchmaking seemed like a neat idea in, like, 2007. In retrospect, it has damaged the industry substantially. All the oxygen has been sucked out of the community server space, etiquette is non-existent, and the aforementioned spyware.
Pretty unfair to paint this as the users choice when the companies are taking our choices away.
If you need to protect competitive play, keep it to actual competitions/make it optional for free play. I'm not giving you unrestricted access to my brokerage account, all of my files, all of my emails/text messages, etc. (which root access on my computer has) so you can prevent cheating in a Sunday night video game.
Reason: Vanguard was crashing another Unity based game I play nonstop. It also seemed to decrease system stability in general.
I will never play another Riot Game so long as this software is a part of it.
Obviously they have so many users, they might need to fix it.
I can imagine that Microsoft might try to help them doing things right.
Closet cheaters are cheating in subtle ways, which make it impossible to know if they're really cheating.
It's a constant analysis of "is he cheating or am I bad?", and most of the time, I could not really know. It's a psychologically toxic experience as I cannot focus on the game itself. I was enjoying the game, but that paranoia made things just unbearable.
I suspect china/russia are actively paying people to make effective cheating software, as it's also a lucrative business.
Even a few pro players are cheating. Those online FPS are rotten to the core.
Apparently valve doesn't seem to care that much, because they probably know that there is a big overlap between cheaters and people who trade skins, who are a big source of income.
Too bad!
My account is 20 years old. And has several games with hundreds of hours including a couple of perfect games, not to mention a hundred or more games. Also phone verified. I don't expect everyone to have similar accounts, but it's seldom I'm matched against anything even remotely similar, say 5 year old accounts with similar playtimes in non-F2P games, though many profiles are private, which itself is - I think - also suspicious since virtually everyone leverages aliases on Steam so I can't really imagine a case for this other than obscuration, though I'm certain some people do it for privacy reasons I expect that rationale is rare.
Beyond that I would say there are a lot of suspicious individuals I've been matched against in both premier and comp . Regardless of whether or not they're smurfs it makes MM obnoxious if only because you end up matched against people who rage and ruin 45m-1h of your time by competing illicitly.
The MM algo is also just shit without these considerations lumped on top of it. I regularly play with my friends who rank lower and that draws my rank down so we get matched in low ranks, resulting in violent pubstomping. Of course I play on my only account, so I'm sure I get hackusated a lot, which would ostensibly get my trust factor drug through the mud. I suppose that's a solid incentive for smurfing on its own, especially since the system is opaque.
It's all pretty bad, frankly. Faceit is hardly better, a lot of the community is pretty toxic and obnoxious salty tryhard metabangers that aren't fun to play with.
On an evolutionary level, the purpose of play is to improve your skill in something in a tight, enjoyable feedback loop. Cheating messes with that.
Though your approach is preferable, I do think cheating (or more broadly, not trusting that you can learn how to improve with further play) kneecaps the whole point of playing.
(I'm badly presenting an idea I learned from Jonathan Blow re: how some game design ideas, such as opaque adaptive difficulty like rubberbanding found in racing games, destroys the purpose of playing)
People constantly cry that the other team is hacking and reviewing the demo shows that they almost never are. The reality is they were just better. That seems to be hard for a large portion of the player base to handle. Low ranks and low trust factor are full of obvious hacks because they make an account, get banned and repeat. You don't see the decent hacks until the upper ranks because you need to be good enough at the game to hide it and would just rank up fast through the middle rankd
Point being that a ”subtle hacker” might be subtle to some and obvious to others. So OP, being a newbie with only 6 mo of experience, might suspect someone being subtle about their hacking but they might be very blatant to a more experienced player.
The Flutter vision feels very similar, treating the web as a big canvas to draw pixels on.
Adding an extra 5 or 10ms of delay would be a massive issue (especially bad if it is an inconsistent delay)
https://www.leagueoflegends.com/en-us/news/dev/dev-vanguard-...
> “On Demand” Vanguard
> "As was foretold, a future will eventually arrive where we can rely on the security features of Windows to protect its own kernel, instead of protecting it from boot with a driver. This will allow us the opportunity to start our anti-cheat services when the game client runs, provided the end-user has opted into all of these features. We’ll have more communication on this topic early next year, but if you’re on Windows 11 and on relatively recent hardware, we wanted to let you know that you won’t have to tolerate the taskbar icon forever (even though we worked very hard on Vanguard’s logo)."
https://blogs.windows.com/windowsexperience/2024/11/19/windo...
> "To help our customers and partners increase resilience, we are developing new Windows capabilities that will allow security product developers to build their products outside of kernel mode. This means security products, like anti-virus solutions, can run in user mode just as apps do. This change will help security developers provide a high level of security, easier recovery, and there will be less impact to Windows in the event of a crash or mistake. A private preview will be made available for our security product ecosystem in July 2025."
And speaking of up to date video drivers, these checks are a plague of usability. If I have stable driver rev 235, why would I install latest buggy version 246? Eg. AMD has 2 flavours of drivers, Adrenalin which has “optimisations”, but crashes, and the Pro drivers which are older but more stable, and have 10 bit support, more colour spaces etc. I’m done dealing with experimental drivers, give me stability 100% time. Games which insist that I run experimental drivers and secure boot can get stuffed.
Kernel-level anticheat is ridiculous. Especially when your data becomes a gaping would ready for the chinese state to stick their fingers into and twist around. It's like the police installing mandatory cameras in everyones house to catch thieves (if society here is games with kernel-level cheats).
I want to go back to the days of Windows 7. When there was minimal corporate bloat in the ecosystem, no ads in the startmenu, and when game studios actually knew what they were talking about and had some balls to stand up for their values.
The problem is, it's gotten hard to do drivers for custom hardware on macOS as a result for everything that can't be done with libusb as a result - and it's also gotten harder to patch over deficiencies of macOS.
You can't have an OS that you can tinker around with and an OS that is secure from cheaters, software pirates and malware at the same time. Android is the best example - either you run an OS that passes Play Integrity/SafetyNet and is blessed by Google and thus can use games, Netflix, banking or a whole lot of other apps that require non-rooted phones these days, but you lose e.g. the ability to do an actual full-device backup, or you run a phone that's rooted or runs a custom OS (say, aftermarket once the manufacturer ceases providing even security updates) but you lose out on about 2/3rds of apps because they just refuse to run.
But do these need to be the same OS? Or is it possible to have them be partitioned off from each other that way you can have a game run with full integrity and then also be able to have a customized experience for things which don't care about integrity.
josephcsible•4h ago
nekitamo•3h ago
It's not nice, I don't like running a kernel mode anti-cheat any more than you do, but I can see why it's necessary for preserving the competitive integrity of free-to-play shooter games like Valorant.
imchillyb•3h ago
Hikikomori•3h ago
__alexs•3h ago
doikor•2h ago
Also the amount of people willing to buy another pc and DMA cards is way smaller making the chance of running into cheater in your match smaller.
az09mugen•2h ago
__alexs•2h ago
Computer vision based cheats are also rapidly on the rise. You don't get wall hacks but you do top 1% reaction times and perfect tracking.
abigail95•1h ago
doikor•3h ago
Only thing I can think of is Microsoft locking down Windows so hard that nothing outside of code written (well signed) by Microsoft can run with kernel level privileges but I think that is an even worse option.
If you don't like it you can always just go and play any of the titles without kernel level anti-cheat and get a cheater in ~1/5th of your games (my experience in counter strike).
jjmarr•3h ago
I'd rather just give Riot Games my driver's licence than full access to my computer. They already know my name and where I live from metadata.
There should be a KYC solution for gaming where a company like Epic, Riot, or Valve verifies your identity and developers can gate competitive video games behind that. If you cheat, you're out for 5-10 years (so dumb teenagers aren't locked out forever). The big issue imo isn't banning cheaters, it's preventing them from creating a new account and cheating again.
Such a system would be free money & low maintenance for whatever company develops it first.
doikor•2h ago
Though they do also use it for stuff like under 16 year olds not being able to play online games between midnight and 6am.
edit: Some extra details about this from a few months ago https://x.com/deteccphilippe/status/1883945555102957617
> KR (Korea) requires national identity numbers for gaming, which opens up a convenient opportunity to ban cheaters at the “soul” level. It is remarkably effective at keeping them out of game for longer periods of time—cheaters have to buy whole new identities to keep playing, so the bans really stick.
jimmydorry•1h ago
doikor•1h ago
At the end of the day the goal isn't 0 cheaters but having few enough that the chance of your match being ruined by one is 1 or 2% instead of 10 or 20%
bob1029•1h ago
Acquire my identity in the same way you would if I was seeking approval for a new checking account or loan. I'd be perfectly happy to see the bar raised a few inches off the ground. The current state of competitive video games is really bad.
razemio•3h ago
doikor•3h ago
> “You have to humanize [the cheat] to a degree where the advantage is imperceptible from what a human can do,” said Koskinas. “And once you’re there, you’re not really cheating enough to make it worth it for most users.”
But if you read the article they do have some way to detect (some) DMA based hacks too where the actual cheat runs on a different computer and use DMA through a pci-express card to read/write directly into memory.
> “I think we detect the majority of it today, but it’s kind of iterative,” said Koskinas.
Though most cheaters "rage cheating" after losing really badly and using cheats to "get back" and those are much easier to detects. This kind of "download random cheat from the internet" at the best only get you banned and at worst your computer is super duper hacked (you are effectively manually downloading a virus and manually giving it admin/kernel level access)
> Thanks to all these techniques and strategies, most cheaters can now be roughly divided into two categories. The first, representing the majority of cheaters, is made up by those who are “rage cheating” by using cheap tools that are easy to detect. Riot employees sarcastically call these cheats “download-a-ban,” according to Koskinas.
At the end of the day all I know from my own experience is that the difference in the amount of cheaters I run into between Counter Strike and Valorant is massive and the main claimed difference being kernel level stuff in Valorants anti cheat (or Valve is just really really bad at making anti cheats)
jimbob45•3h ago
CS2 is entirely unplayable now due to hackers. I’m told Valorant isn’t much better. There’s probably just no solution unless you design your game to not benefit from hacking (e.g. Hearthstone, MTG)
doikor•3h ago
Though as I understand the amount of cheaters in both games varies based on how high/low in the ranked rating you are.
pcwalton•3h ago
jokoon•3h ago
smallstepforman•58m ago
mschuster91•27m ago
Besides, sowing discontent is a tried and true propaganda strategy.
orbital-decay•3h ago
johnnyanmac•3h ago
Now is a kerbal level anti-cheat overkill? Hard to say from the outside but it does seem like installing a steel vault for your door. While the window is still right there as normal.
orbital-decay•3h ago
What even makes you think it's a solvable problem? Even with a totally cryptographically controlled end-to-end hardware chain that treats the player like an adversary/inmate (like in the consoles, maybe even more strict) there's always a possibility of ML-based cheats with a low-latency camera. Barely anyone does that now because there are easier methods, but trust me, it will get used if required, just like DMA is used now. People already throw crazy money into cheating.
It's a race to the bottom where everybody eventually loses except the corporations. Players never get rid of the cheaters completely, unrelated people who don't play games get their hardware+software locked down because of a bunch of whiny gamers, and corpos obtain the ultimate vendor lock.
The optimal amount of bad behavior is not zero.
doikor•3h ago
Making it hard enough is good enough. The difference in 1% of games having a cheater and 5 or 10% is massive in the player experience.
JadeNB•2h ago
If the locks treated me, the legitimate owner, as a criminal and required the kind of low-level access that software that runs at the kernel level gets, and still didn't work, then maybe.
dingnuts•2h ago
wiseowise•2h ago
The solution is not to make the lock so hard that it inconveniences you, the user, it is to shoot intruder on sight (aka better moderation).
doikor•1h ago
> The optimal amount of bad behavior is not zero.
Obviously the goal never has been to have 0 cheaters. Just from the detection side you need to delay the bans, let in some of the previously detected cheats again, etc to keep the cat and mouse game going on (make it harder to A/B test your cheats)
https://x.com/deteccphilippe/status/1883945555102957617
> Worse still, is that we actually have to let them back in. When we outright “block” a cheating method, we are technically providing the cheater an instantaneous surface to iterate against, allowing them to A/B test their cheats until they find something that is actually undetected at that layer.
> unrelated people who don't play games get their hardware+software locked down because of a bunch of whiny gamers
If you think it is an issue then don't play their game. Very few companies are willing to go through the effort as it is actually quite a lot of work just from the security vulnerability aspects alone (and you also have to effectively detect the cheats too)
orbital-decay•1h ago
>If you think it is an issue then don't play their game.
This is a hypothetical example which would affect everyone regardless of playing any games. Not an existing thing, thankfully.
(although I wouldn't be surprised if the pressure will eventually be enough to make this happen. The fact that you can't fix a rotten culture with authoritarian measures without affecting everyone else never stopped anyone)
candiddevmike•1h ago
squigz•1h ago
dfxm12•1h ago
mvdtnz•3h ago
johnnyanmac•3h ago
Makes me glad I prefer mostly single player content and never tolerate this stuff on my PC. If I gotta be locked down I'll just pick up a console.
jokoon•3h ago
I am not expert, but I think it's not necessarily the case?
Cheating is really a plague right now, and the only way to mitigate it is using kernel anti cheat.
ronsor•2h ago
If your solution is bad, it doesn't deserve to work. Find something else.
doikor•2h ago
> “You have to humanize [the cheat] to a degree where the advantage is imperceptible from what a human can do,” said Koskinas. “And once you’re there, you’re not really cheating enough to make it worth it for most users.”
But it is something they acknowledge will be an issue at some point in the future. Personally I think for now AI is way too slow as all the computation needs to happen in a few milliseconds to really be effective.
> Koskinas says he often worries about the use of AI for screen classification, to learn what human inputs look like, and how to reproduce them.
az09mugen•2h ago
ronsor•2h ago
mschuster91•36m ago
doikor•1h ago
https://x.com/deteccphilippe/status/1883945555102957617
> “Behavior” refers to an ML suspension (also called “server-sided” anti-cheat), often given to ragehackers.
But then you can just teach an AI to act like a human. Anti cheats in computer games is and always will be a cat and mouse game and AI/ML is just another tool in the bag of many tools (most bans seem to be fingerprinting based basically rebanning previous offenders who failed to get around the fingerprinting system)
int_19h•21m ago