undefined | Better HN

0 pointsarendtio2y ago0 comments

Obviously, you haven't been in a position where you had to patch the anti-cheat solution yourself in order to play the game you paid for.

Well-designed games offer limited potential for cheaters by design. An anti-cheat software can help to eliminate the little potential that is left, but often games are designed without cheating in mind and some anti-cheat software is put in place to solve all the issues that were produced by the bad design.

0 comments

mainde2y ago

I think that there are very few tasks in competitive multiplayer games that humans perform better than machines[1], I don't think your statement holds true unless you exclude a huge amount of game genres or you take all the fun out of them. (E.g. no FPSs or ..FPSs with no aiming?)

[1] Unless we're talking about captcha solving competitions, for now, maybe. :)

kuschku2y ago

You're right in that, if your server rejects inputs that are too fast, too precise, too robotic to be human, bots will emulate the top-playing humans ever more closely.

But the question I want to ask is: Is that a problem?

If all the bots and cheaters are playing indistinguishable from high-level real humans, where's the harm?

Or, to quote Westworld: If you can't tell the difference, does it matter?

0x4572y ago

> If you can't tell the difference, does it matter?

There is a difference in skill level distribution. If everyone playing at a highly skilled player level, then it's simply not fun and doesn't provide an opportunity to get better.

Anyways, playing with cheaters isn't fun and if you want to play without them then you need anti-cheat and/or game to not be free.

1 more reply

mainde2y ago

Uhm, yes, I think it is a problem because unfairly losing isn't as fun as fairly losing or fairly winning. Ignorance about the fairness of a game may work in a few instances but would not scale.

You don't have to reach pro levels, it often only takes small assists to turn a balanced game on its head, ruining someone's experience with a game. Repeat often enough and the userbase will leave, feeling cheated or at least demoralised for being unable to compete or improve.

And allowing machine-assists, thus leveling the playing field, turns the game into a completely different one that is (imho) drastically less fun whoever may not be interested in (or may be unable to) running/coding their bot.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

mainde2y ago

[1] Unless we're talking about captcha solving competitions, for now, maybe. :)

kuschku2y ago

You're right in that, if your server rejects inputs that are too fast, too precise, too robotic to be human, bots will emulate the top-playing humans ever more closely.

But the question I want to ask is: Is that a problem?

If all the bots and cheaters are playing indistinguishable from high-level real humans, where's the harm?

Or, to quote Westworld: If you can't tell the difference, does it matter?

0x4572y ago

> If you can't tell the difference, does it matter?

There is a difference in skill level distribution. If everyone playing at a highly skilled player level, then it's simply not fun and doesn't provide an opportunity to get better.

Anyways, playing with cheaters isn't fun and if you want to play without them then you need anti-cheat and/or game to not be free.

1 more reply

mainde2y ago

Uhm, yes, I think it is a problem because unfairly losing isn't as fun as fairly losing or fairly winning. Ignorance about the fairness of a game may work in a few instances but would not scale.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse