This is so funny because rust has one of the worst cheating situations and majority of their players are windows users, and theres lots of games that have anticheat that allows linux and have notably less significant cheating problems like marvel rivals. in reality rust doesn’t take cheating very seriously because if they did they would have more server side software that detects illegitimate behaviour like tons of other games do successfully… even most popular Minecraft servers have better functioning anti cheat that is completely server side than rust has while getting kernel access to your pc. its pathetic and lazy development tbh and this entire post from them reads like such extreme cope…

  • Credibly_Human@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1·
    2 hours ago

    I find a number of problems with the level of authoritativeness that you speak and some of the arguments you’ve made.

    The core of your first argument lumped together is that a small amount of extra latency is the same thing as “impossible”. This is obviously not true as even with some relatively fast paced genres, what is acceptable varies wildly. Maybe such an argument could be used for Valorant, but not for Pubg or escape from Tarkov (games that are already known for netcode slow enough that this would not truly/notably harm the experiences of players if they were designed for this from the start).

    Same goes for non-player objects, which are the result of a player’s action somewhere else. If a player kicks a bucket across the map, the bucket flying through your screen makes it trivially easy to calculate the point of origin - and you know something happened there / player was there.

    This example is contrived, and just the type of thing where there are a number of options available.

    One could simply not send the bucket, send it with a delay, the bucket could not exist (the majority of games), the buckets origin could be randomized just enough to be at the tested limit of player perception, the game could include a trace shadow by default.

    For every example like this, there are options available which aren’t entrusting a black box to access all of your data with a pinky promise.

    We’d be really really lucky if server side fog of war would be the kill-it-all solution to cheating.

    There is no kill-it-all solution, and this is a clever little re-framing of the argument by you where the new solution has to be perfect, when the status quo can just be mid.

    • AAA@feddit.orgEnglish
      1·
      1 hour ago

      I don’t understand how you lump my arguments into “extra latency”. Server side anti cheat doesn’t add latency (I mean technically it does, but that’s not the concern right now), but latency is very much the reason for the downsides I pointed out. The smaller the margins, the higher the chance one of the two players doesn’t see the other coming solmoothly around the corner, but suddenly materializing in full view.

      Your examples illustrate that very well. It’s OK for PUPG or Tarkov (and even there only long distances), but a hard for Valorant.

      This example is contrived, and just the type of thing where there are a number of options available.

      And now, instead of the irrelevant bucket, make the same argument for a relevant object - like a grenade, or tracers. You cannot just get rid of everything or implement random delays or randomized origins.

      There is no kill-it-all solution, and this is a clever little re-framing of the argument by you where the new solution has to be perfect, when the status quo can just be mid.

      It’s not reframing. The original argument I replied to claimed these hacks only exist because the server sends everything, and it would be extremely easy to fix this. Neither of which is true.