Instale o Steam
iniciar sessão
|
idioma
简体中文 (Chinês simplificado)
繁體中文 (Chinês tradicional)
日本語 (Japonês)
한국어 (Coreano)
ไทย (Tailandês)
Български (Búlgaro)
Čeština (Tcheco)
Dansk (Dinamarquês)
Deutsch (Alemão)
English (Inglês)
Español-España (Espanhol — Espanha)
Español-Latinoamérica (Espanhol — América Latina)
Ελληνικά (Grego)
Français (Francês)
Italiano (Italiano)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonésio)
Magyar (Húngaro)
Nederlands (Holandês)
Norsk (Norueguês)
Polski (Polonês)
Português (Portugal)
Română (Romeno)
Русский (Russo)
Suomi (Finlandês)
Svenska (Sueco)
Türkçe (Turco)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamita)
Українська (Ucraniano)
Relatar um problema com a tradução
Regras e diretrizes para discussões
Denunciar esta mensagem
Are Bitdefender customers nfested with virus's?
Do Bitdefender customers need to report virus's to Bitdefender in most cases because Bitdefender isn't detecting virus's?
Does Bitdefender allow the virus to run for months after being reported before finally removing it or worse yet, ignoring it?
Really? This is their best argument now? It is pathetic.
Not much can be expected from someone who has nothing to do with Pubg or who presents outdated data as if it is still up to date. Since it no longer produces excuses, it needs to turn to different areas. Comparing antivirus with Pubg. He compares the program that shows 99.9% success with the anti-cheat that does not work with the anti-cheat that does not work without Pubg.
Antivirus companies intervene instantly to avoid losing customers. It doesn't ignore it like Pubg. The player base for Pubg now consists of cheaters. Unless we take into account those who play with bots or those who play like bots.
Pubg is now like a trade center in itself. Cheaters are now everywhere like ordinary players. In addition to this, renting Bot accounts, such as managing 20-30 accounts. with these accounts KD, Medal etc. used for jobs. in addition, with the use of cheats, new accounts are brought to Master rank and sold. There is a cycle now.
The question is that Antivirus companies avoid mistakes that will harm them.
However, Pubg turns a blind eye. no new account can become a master with 32 matches. this is something like impossible. Someone who does not play at the master level cannot know the difficulty of this. More than half of the people who are not ranked right now use cheats. or makes them use. Being first in 12 matches in a row is not a normal situation. and that it becomes continuous. 21 times in 24 matches. That's an abnormal statistic. Someone like you, who plays with bots, will understand this.
You and your useless, deceptive and untruthful writings.
I proved you wrong and now you point on something different instead of to say, "Yes I was wrong, sorry for that".
PUBG does all the necessary things antivirus companies do as well.
In a scenario where antiviruses have to work with the same problems anticheats have to deal with, they wouldn't offer a service because it is impossible to secure the system because one end is always compromised because they hackers have access to the client they can manipulate.
This is a nightmare in terms of security and the root for the cheating issue.
You got told why cheaters can get away with many matches but if you ignore why games need proof of at least 99,999% to ban cheaters it isn't the fault of anyone but you.
They don't ignore cheaters, they let them play until they have solid proof to avoid false positive bans.
This is a standard way even Valorant does.
This has been debunked.
99.9999% proof is an absurd requirement to meet with regards to proof. Nobody would ever get banned as there would always be an element of doubt that could be raised.
Criminal trials in western countries are "beyond reasonable doubt", while civil trials have the burden of proof greater than "balance of probabilities".
I hardly think that a computer game requires people reviewing cheating to require 99.9999% proof of anything. Someone will view the replay and decide to ban them then and there if it has the hallmarks of cheating.
They'll have no evidence other than how bad it looks (like ESP). That's not actually proof...that's not 99.99999%, that's just a low paid person reviewing the video and seeing someone track targets through walls bad enough to warrant them to hit the ban hammer.
How do false bans even happen if the burden of proof is at 99.9999%?
It's such a stupid statement to believe. How is it even measured if it's true?
Stop spreading false rubbish like this that's easily debunked.
Wrong. They frequently ignore people obviously cheating and don't action on bans for months after being reported.
Fornaks has posted videos previously with people clearly cheating with ESP that still aren't banned now.
Fornaks posted the video showing a cheat farming rank points with bots. Took weeks and weeks before banning them despite it being blatantly obvious they were cheating over and over, with all the evidence in their match history killing the same bots over and over. Thankfully they did ban almost all of that cheats accounts (but not all).
Lega, you can track everything now, including when accounts are banned. This is demonstrably false.
You never did anything like that to most points, you just claim your opinion while ignoring how all games handle this point.
The former anti-cheat dev of Valorant explained it very well and I posted it several times but you never listen even if experts prove you wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9YXkAp99RI&list=LL&index=39&t=4s
Instead of a 2 hour + video, can you respond to any of the points I made on my post explaining why 99.99999% is demonstrably false for a game as it clearly is not 99.99999% proof on any ban that they do.
If RIOT are saying it, then my comment on the other post "It's such a stupid statement to believe." applies. How/what are they measuring this with to be so confident every time? It's just industry spin.
How do you avoid false bans?
If you follow certain rules where you need a rock solid proof to ban cheaters and 99,999 means, they allow one false ban every 10,000 cases.
It could be even more solid than this.
Cheaters can return to games once they got caught but falsely banned players will be punished forever and this is why they are very careful there.
This also has an aspect about laws in which they might ban players with a business running, like content creators, etc.
They could sue the company if they get falsely banned.
How is it measured then?
If it was a up time on a Cloud hosted server that had a requirement of 99.999% up time, I could easily measure this simply by how long the server has been online over the year. This offers a clear way to measure this.
How do you measure confidence of 99.999%, please explain to me that there's such a way to measure confidence on decisions to have such a high level of certainty? Remember, it has to be so super right that they need to even factor in human error and mistakes into this calculation.
It's absurd that you believe this at face value whenever an industry pundit says it. It's very obviously a statement to instil confidence that they are being very accurate and fair in how they ban people. The track record of these companies though leaves a lot to be desired as they often false ban despite apparently having 99.999% proof.
There's no requirement to be 99.999% sure. It's made up.
Come on, were you not born with any critical thinking?
That not hard when you know nothing. LOL, you stepped into that one!
You know what the problem is?
I told you all this and more several times and you never saved the information. You don't need to believe it but at least, you save the argument to remember it.
How do you measure it?
Based on math.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTcP4oo4JI4
You don't get the exact number but close enough to reach your rule.
This is also why banning cheaters based on data server side system can collect etc, is so difficult because, for this, you need to have data, and therefore, cheaters have to play matches until they reach the threshold.
Wow....you really have no idea.
I never said that they aren't using a model for making decisions. I'm saying that 99.999% accuracy is clearly something that don't track to as there's too many variables - it would be impossible to measure, and would not be possible to build into the model accurately all the variables need to get that type of accuracy.
Just one tiny miscalculation or mistake or system error would throw the accuracy out.
The video demonstrated binary data (heads or tales) to gather the statistics needed to create a model to answer if there's cheating or not on a coin flip.
PUBG's data needs to make a decision on cheating but the data it needs to rely on is not binary. It's a multitude of inputs. Some will be indicative only and other would be trustworthy but still prone to error.
Furthermore, a human, which is a major part of the PUBG anticheat ban process, can't possibly factor in all the variables when they review. There maybe some indicators that help (red flags like new account and accuracy and whatever else is tracked automatically) but a human needing to meet your requirement of 99.999% is simply ridiculous. How can they adhere to 99.999% accuracy for those bans done by human review which are part of the anticheat?
Even on a model, there is no need to have 99.999% accuracy. It can be changed and altered as required. There's no industry requirement to have it at 99.999%. The video demonstrated it, there's no way they'd adjust it to the extreme of 99.999% because it would let off too many very obvious cheaters.
it's just industry bull dust. It's abundantly clear that you can be banned by a game developer without needing to meet a 99.999% threshold for cheating.
Do you lack critical thinking skills?
This is a simplistic view and easily beaten by cheaters.
All they need to do is turn off their cheats for one game out of 10 and then the more they play, the more doubt gets added to the data that's collected because 10% of their games don't have cheats on them and the model can't be 99.999% sure then can it.
Obviously it doesn't work like that, because it would be stupidly easy to beat.
Totally invalidates the point you are trying to make though.
Even the point how banning based on data works proved you wrong already but you still don't see it. You collect data and compare it until the data reach the level where you have a solid proof of cheating.
Yes, in a case where they aren't sure, they may calculate the possibility.
Even if not, the former anti-cheat dev explained the necessary threshold games need to ban cheaters and this is 99,999%, rock solid.
"Do you lack critical thinking skills?"
This irony.......
I could write a book already of all the mistakes I found already, you should be careful there to write stuff like that.