Nainstalovat Steam
přihlásit se
|
jazyk
简体中文 (Zjednodušená čínština)
繁體中文 (Tradiční čínština)
日本語 (Japonština)
한국어 (Korejština)
ไทย (Thajština)
български (Bulharština)
Dansk (Dánština)
Deutsch (Němčina)
English (Angličtina)
Español-España (Evropská španělština)
Español-Latinoamérica (Latin. španělština)
Ελληνικά (Řečtina)
Français (Francouzština)
Italiano (Italština)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonéština)
Magyar (Maďarština)
Nederlands (Nizozemština)
Norsk (Norština)
Polski (Polština)
Português (Evropská portugalština)
Português-Brasil (Brazilská portugalština)
Română (Rumunština)
Русский (Ruština)
Suomi (Finština)
Svenska (Švédština)
Türkçe (Turečtina)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamština)
Українська (Ukrajinština)
Nahlásit problém s překladem
Its an ongoing action, and more player activate the cheat alternativly more players get reported..be glad the numbers are rising, that means MORE are getting banned.
What he is saying is: There are more and more cheaters every week. It's good that they ban them. But the fact that they ban more and more every week, shows that there is a big cheater problem.
This week (December 27, 2024–January 2, 2025), our security team took action against 2376 players, imposing bans of up to 10 years. Specific measures included 1394 DMA bans, 1241 devices blocked,5417 cheating attempts stopped in real time, and 15993 players forced offline for cheating.
That's like over 20,000. Basically 25% of the people playing are cheating.
I mean, if they are just account banning this could explain why the number is increasing each week. Cheaters can create new accounts without any problems.
Hardware bans are way more effective, hopefully they are issuing those!
Not really. Every decent cheat comes with a hardware ID spoofer
Just pc gaming in general, slightly higher on free 2 play but it has always been the case. Will never stop unfortunately
In a Freudian sense, this could be understood as a defense mechanism: the societal refusal to acknowledge the real identity of the banned serves as a way to distance itself from the unconscious guilt and shame associated with such exclusions. It feels like a hollow form of protection, one that both pretends to shield the individual and simultaneously dehumanizes them. To me, this process feels distasteful — not just because of its lack of transparency, but because it reveals a deeper unease about the very idea of exclusion itself.
Ultimately, the practice is unsettling, not because of its intent, but because it reflects an institutionalized aversion to confronting the complexities of human behavior. The asterisks become symbols of a broader societal discomfort with truth, identity, and the consequences of judgment. It is as if the very act of banning is cloaked in a protective veil, as though we are too afraid to face the reality of who we are excluding — and why.