So what’s the point of an anti cheat then if you don’t know how many people are cheating, how many people are not, and you don’t have confidence that the anti cheat is 99% effective at the very least?
It can be tested in closed systems but it’s not something you can easily define the success rate of because the cheats are constantly evolving and game updates close or introduce vulnerabilities.
There is still value of having an anti-cheat even if it does not have a high chance of catching cheaters, so long as it keeps false positives to a minimum.
Thanks for letting me know. So we don’t have any proof at all that these anti cheats are effective? I’m not even saying which anti cheat. Just saying in general.
What do you mean definition of effective lmfao. An anti cheat should stop cheaters. If I go on counter strike and I find a cheater then that anti cheat is ineffective. If I go on valorant and don’t find a cheater that is effective. It’s not that complicated.
Can you please provide evidence that valorant has more or less cheaters than CS2, scaled by player base. Hearsay and personal experience aren’t facts. I personally have not encountered more than 1 cheater in valorant whereas with other games without kernel level anti cheat, every other lobby has one.
Does anyone have proof that this is less/more effective than kernel level anti cheat?
Please provide factual evidence, not hearsay. That’s % cheaters detected vs % cheaters not detected scaled by the overall player base.
Nobody can have proof of that, because no such proof can ever exist. How would you ever have a proven correct number of cheaters not detected?
So what’s the point of an anti cheat then if you don’t know how many people are cheating, how many people are not, and you don’t have confidence that the anti cheat is 99% effective at the very least?
It can be tested in closed systems but it’s not something you can easily define the success rate of because the cheats are constantly evolving and game updates close or introduce vulnerabilities.
There is still value of having an anti-cheat even if it does not have a high chance of catching cheaters, so long as it keeps false positives to a minimum.
“there is still value of having an anti cheat even though it does not have a high chance of catch cheaters”
That doesn’t make any sense. LOL. What’s the value then of the anti cheat?
deleted by creator
Doesn’t matter. I will not install a rootkit
No factual evidence provided.
There is evidence kernel level anti cheat can still be bypassed.
Please provide proof that games with kernel level anti cheat have the same rate of cheating as games without it.
A game blocks cheats or it doesn’t. Only cheat providers and gaming companies will have those numbers and I’m not sure they are going to release them.
Thanks for letting me know. So we don’t have any proof at all that these anti cheats are effective? I’m not even saying which anti cheat. Just saying in general.
Depends on your definition of effective. Both are still certainly too much. I haven’t seen one that’s 100% effective.
What do you mean definition of effective lmfao. An anti cheat should stop cheaters. If I go on counter strike and I find a cheater then that anti cheat is ineffective. If I go on valorant and don’t find a cheater that is effective. It’s not that complicated.
Then I’d argue there isn’t an effective anti cheat. Valorant definitely has cheaters.
Can you please provide evidence that valorant has more or less cheaters than CS2, scaled by player base. Hearsay and personal experience aren’t facts. I personally have not encountered more than 1 cheater in valorant whereas with other games without kernel level anti cheat, every other lobby has one.