Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by throw10920 102 days ago
Wait, so the "community alternative" is also kernel-level anticheat? I think that's different from what I'm proposing - I'm suggesting a comparison between an anticheat and no anticheat (with community policing of lobbies and handing out of penalties).
3 comments
z0mghii 102 days ago
Why would a player knowingly choose to play on matchmaking that is advertising no anti-cheat?

But anyway counterstrike did have community policing of lobbies called overwatch - https://counterstrike.fandom.com/wiki/Overwatch

It was terrible as it required the community to conclude beyond reasonable doubt the suspect was cheating, and cheats today are sophisticated enough to make that conclusion very difficult to make

link
ndriscoll 101 days ago
Because their (or their friend's) computer can't run the anticheat, but they're interested in playing with friends? My sister and mom wanted me to play Valorant with them a free years back, but apparently it needs kernel anticheat, so I just can't run it. I'm not going to buy a new computer for a game.

And the way community policing worked in the past is that the "police" (refs) could just kick or ban you. They don't need a trial system if the community doesn't want that.

link
throw10920 102 days ago
> Why would a player knowingly choose to play on matchmaking that is advertising no anti-cheat?

I guess I didn't exactly make that clear...

A few of the arguments advanced by the "anti-anticheat" crowd that inevitably pops up in these threads are "anticheat is ineffective so there's no point to using it" and "anticheat is immoral because players aren't given a choice to use it or not and most of them would choose to not use it".

I don't believe that either of these are true (and given the choice I would almost never pick the no-anticheat queue), but there's not a lot of good high-quality data to back that up. Hence, the proposal for a dual-queue system to try to gather that data.

Putting in the community review of the no-anticheat pool is just to head off the inevitable goalpost-moving of "well of course no system would be worse than a crappy system (anticheat), you need to compare the best available alternative (community moderation)".

link
john01dav 101 days ago
> Why would a player knowingly choose to play on matchmaking that is advertising no anti-cheat?

My understanding of the proposal is that it advertises no invasive anticheat (meaning mostly rootkit/kernel anticheat). So, the value proposition is anyone who doesn't want a rootkit on their computer. This could be due to anything from security concerns to desiring (more) meaningful ownership of one's devices.

link
charcircuit 102 days ago
VAC is essentially no anticheat with how easily it is bypassed.
link
hur 101 days ago
VAC (the valve anticheat) is not kernel-level. The community alternative is. The official matchmaking is pretty full of cheaters.
link
2postsperday 98 days ago
It might be, although trust factor has a major outcome of match quality.

I have over 10,000 hours in the game, majority played on official servers with quite a low % of matches impacted by cheaters. The match quality does deteriorate with Premier rating. I noticed a decent jump in cheaters after about 25k rating, although the number is not as much as people like to make it out to be.

link