FishFace comments on Eurogamer asked Valve if there had been any progress in helping games requiring kernel-level anti-cheat, with Valve responding that the Steam Machine's expected focus on multiplayer gaming could encou

[–] FishFace@piefed.social -1 points 10 months ago (7 children)

Client side anti-cheat has more data than server-side, because that is where the player's actual screen, mouse and keyboard are.

The cheat only uses data available on the client - obviously - so the extra data about game state on the server is irrelevant.

"ML" is also not relevant. It doesn't make the server any more able to make up for the data it doesn't have. It only forces cheats to try and make realistic inputs, which they already do. And it ends up meaning that you don't understand the decisions your anti-cheat model is making, so the inevitable false positives will cause a stink because you can't justify them.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 7 child comments

[–] warm@kbin.earth 5 points 10 months ago (6 children)

It doesn't have to extinguish 99% of cheaters, hell, it doesn't even need to extinguish cheating all together. It just has to make the problem manageable and invisible to players. That's something server side can achieve. I'll take the odd game with a cheater in if my entire PC isn't ransom to some random company.

If cheaters exist but can only do it in a way that makes them look like a real player, then it doesn't really effect the game anymore and the problem isn't visible to players. You are never going to get rid of cheaters, even at LAN they have injected software in the past. It's a deeper problem than we can solve with software.

Client-side AC has proven futile over and over again, even today with all the kernel AC. As I already said: most good cheats don't even run on the same device anymore, completely circumventing any kernel (client side) anti-cheat anyway.

Why be allergic to trying something new? Something that isn't invasive, a massive security threat or controlling of your own personal system.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] FishFace@piefed.social 2 points 10 months ago (5 children)

It doesn't have to extinguish 99% of cheaters, but if it affects 1% of legitimate players that's a big problem. Good luck tuning your ML to have a less than 1% false positive rate while still doing anything.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] warm@kbin.earth 3 points 10 months ago (4 children)

Good luck tuning your ML to have a less than 1% false positive rate while still doing anything.

Already exists with VACnet in the largest competitive FPS, Counter-Strike. And machine learning has grown massively in the last couple years, as you probably know with all the "AI" buzz.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] FishFace@piefed.social 2 points 10 months ago (3 children)

And it's still used together with client side cheat detection.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] warm@kbin.earth 0 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Yes, scanning of it's own game files to detect anything suspicious. It doesn't scan every file on your computer, dictate what applications you can or can't run and doesn't install itself at the kernel level. I don't have a problem with that at all.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] FishFace@piefed.social 1 point 10 months ago (1 child)

Cool but this started with you saying anti chest should be server side, not that it should not be kernel level.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] warm@kbin.earth 1 point 10 months ago

It was pretty obvious from the get go that my main concern is intrusive anti-cheat solutions.

Either way, the bulk of anti-cheat should be server yes, a basic client-side AC can exist alongside it to capture the most basic of cheats. Although entirely server side would be fine.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent