But there's also nothing to gain by admitting and stopping the deception. As long as there's one useful idiot who can be deceived, you cna keep it going.
Ich sitze am anderen Ende eines "Programmierers" der nur AI code committed. Der liest seinen Code nicht, er versteht seinen Code nicht, und bei Fehlern ist er nicht in der Lage selbstständig herauszufinden WAS der Fehler ist. Entsprechend ist er nicht in der Lage Fehler zu fixen. Er verdeckt sie höchstens mit noch mehr AI Code.
Äußerst unangenehm.
Ich sehe es so:
AI ist ein gutes Tool für Leute die schon programmieren können, aber ein schlechtes Tool für diejenigen die den schweren Teil überspringen wollen und es nur als Abkürzung sehen.
Lässt sich sicher auch auf andere Berufsgruppen oder Tätigkeiten anwenden.
Kinda hard to be original with four digit PINs. Of course there's some worse choices than others, but 9999 possible combinations really limit creativity.
Like which country would do that? Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Japan? China won't, because they own Russia already. They'd actually start defending Russia, to protect their own interests.
Also attacking Russia might be the fastest way to find out if their nuclear arsenal is working or not. They cannot use nukes in Ukraine because of NATO, but I'm not sure if they would have the same concerns if say Kazakhstan tried anything.
My point applied in specific cases where relevant, and the dishonesty in your argument here is by acting like I am talking about not having a game.
It's tellingly ironic that for you it's totally okay to make a broad statement, then when being called out cut it back to "where relevant". And in the same sentence you make a strawman yourself, claiming that I'm acting like you are "talking about not having a game at all".
If you want your arguments understood "where relevant", maybe show the same consideration.
As for the grenade and bullet examples I simply disagree. Given a certain observable trajectory it's freakishly easy to get a good enough point of origin to get an unfair advantage with that information. As for an example about the bullets, I believe there's enough FPS games with tracers out there. An extreme example would be Unreal Tournament Instagib matches. Where you see literally all tracers - directed at you or not.
If we're going to that extent, we might as well also then say that all client side anti cheat is worthless because you can use a secondary machine to read the ram of a primary machine or other such high effort cheating strategies.
Correct. Client side anti cheat can only make it so hard. Never impossible.
because they never claimed anything was a kill-it-all solution. They claimed one thing was a specific solution for a particular problem, which it is.
Yes, they said wall hacks would not exist if the server would only send what a user can actually see:
The only reason they are possible is because the positions of all players are being sent to the client and then the client just doesn't draw them to screen.
And that's not true. Wall hacks would still exist, as necessary information can be used to determine an enemies position. To a certain extend.
And yes, put to an unreasonable extreme it would eliminate wall hacks entirely. Just nobody would want to play such a game.
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.
I think the one who's not thinking about the scale is you. As the server owner you pay (compute) for every additional player. This goes directly against the wish to have as many players as possible playing your game.
This discussion spun of from a company stating specifically they don't want to invest more into anti cheat solutions. And that's from a company which absolutely could afford it.
How does the client detect that when running said cheat on another machine? It doesn't.
You make it sound like I said that, but I didn't.
In fact I'm very much against kernel level anti cheat.
Still both can be calculated back to the source of origin. It may not be enough for a wall hack to reliably point out the enemies exact position, but definitely enough for a radar or proximity hack.
Edit: Your also completely ignoring the mandatory threshold where the server absolutely needs to send you enemy information already in order to avoid enemies popping into existence. The faster the game, the bigger that threshold.
And by all means, sound (in video games) is a pretty linear thing. You can only randomize so much, until players complain that it's not reliable.
In the games were talking about these kind of additional info or heads-up are an unfair advantage in competitive play.
The solution sounds easy, but I do believe that if it was, we would see it in at least some current games.
Please see my other answer. Yes server side fog of war solves a lot, but not everything because it works with your FoV+some extra. On top of that there's enemies' sounds and objects that will make wall/radar hacks work.
Yes, skill based matchmaking would take care of the consistent not-inhuman cheater, but unfortunately the number of games getting that right can be count on two hands, I would say. It's an interesting problem on its own for team based games.
I'm not in the smuggling business at all, but I guess a drone capable of carrying the same payload as a balloon is a lot more expensive.
Also you want the drone back, which increases the risk of being discovered. Balloons are fire and forget, and you don't need to stick around.