logoalt Hacker News

transcriptaseyesterday at 5:06 PM3 repliesview on HN

I’ve seen so many cases of cheaters online where even the most braindead of checks would neuter most cheats:

Are they moving faster than conceivably possible by a real player? Even the most basic (x2-x1)/t > twice the theoretical will catch people teleporting or speed hacking.

Is their KDR or any other performance metric outside 5 standard deviations from the mean?

Here’s one: is everyone they encounter reporting them for cheating along with one of the above? Do people leave their matches constantly?

Defining and detecting objectively impossible things is not impossible.


Replies

dijityesterday at 6:01 PM

Yeah, we do those things.

1) they’re not foolproof

2) there is a delay in aggregating the data

this has annoying effects when the game has a trial period/goes on sale/has lots of cheap CD keys floating around.

3) if you weren’t delayed then the cheaters get better at adjusting to how you catch them.

We actually do a lot of statistical analysis, but it works in tandem with endpoint anti-cheat, and would hardly work at all alone.

show 1 reply
Aerroonyesterday at 8:30 PM

>Are they moving faster than conceivably possible by a real player? Even the most basic (x2-x1)/t > twice the theoretical will catch people teleporting or speed hacking.

This is how I imagine Amazon ended up banning a large amount of players for speedhacking. The players were lagging. I'm guessing their anti-lag features ended up moving them faster than the anti-cheat expected.

But I agree that a combination approach would probably work.

Thaxllyesterday at 6:40 PM

Scoring ect ... is kind of useless because it's not a proof, basically it means nothing tangible to be able to ban with 100% confidence. That's why ML is not good for detecting cheaters.

It gives a score that is hard to use.