valve your anticheat ♥♥♥♥ing sucks

[yie boy jackson]

just about anyone can paste a cheat and add some junkcode to it, remove features, make an account look legit and cheat in prime as long as theyre not too obvious, a more intrusive anticheat should be an option for players seriously concerned about cheating and dont mind the more aggresive method of banning. esea does this, it works and people have the cs experience we all enjoy(ed). the requirements should be higher than prime - level 30, 600 hours minimum for example and should be an option for all skill levels. isnt this just the easy answer? other people who aren't bothered about cheating (basically noone) and people working their way up can use trust factor and prime along the way. doesnt this solve the problem?

[flobefall]

Read how VAC works and you know that a player can't look legit for the system.

[yie boy jackson]

how the ♥♥♥♥ am i cheating with 400 hours then, vac ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ sucks

[flobefall]

Messaggio originale di *dabs*:

how the ♥♥♥♥ am i cheating with 400 hours then, vac ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ sucks

Yeah, 90k banned players in 48hrs. Soooo bad.

[yie boy jackson]

cos the p2cs got hit by the vac wave, im talking about private pastes ♥♥♥♥♥♥

[?!]

Whatever you're using isn't in the database yet. That's pretty much how. VAC can only ban for identifiable cheats.

[flobefall]

Messaggio originale di *dabs*:

cos the p2cs got hit by the vac wave, im talking about private pastes ♥♥♥♥♥♥

Don't get personal or your bans will start right here with a ban for the community.

[Jim Thirwell]

So if a country has a police force there should be zero crime ? Is that how it works ?

[yie boy jackson]

Messaggio originale di Jim Thirwell:

So if a country has a police force there should be zero crime ? Is that how it works ?

no but if a country has an experienced and efficient police force there's less crime.

[flobefall]

Messaggio originale di *dabs*:

Messaggio originale di Jim Thirwell:

So if a country has a police force there should be zero crime ? Is that how it works ?

no but if a country has an experienced and efficient police force there's less crime.

Less, but not zero.

[Jim Thirwell]

Messaggio originale di *dabs*:

Messaggio originale di Jim Thirwell:

So if a country has a police force there should be zero crime ? Is that how it works ?

no but if a country has an experienced and efficient police force there's less crime.

You want zero cheaters not less . Zero.

So you are happy for steam to have full access to all your files in your pc ? Unrestricted access to look at whatever they want ?

No anticheat can catch all cheats . Some are well coded others are just a few people using them so they dont get noticed yet

[gwait]

The thread sounds more like an excuse for you to be arrogant that you are somehow cool that you are not getting banned by VAC, justifying your vulgar comments.

No one said that the anti-cheat is perfect in the first place. This topic has been discussed to death many times. Whilst it is easy to just say "oh just make it more intrusive and problem solved! easy right?", it isn't actually that easy.

First of all, let's not forget that you are not speaking on behalf of the majority of the CS:GO playerbase here. As an example, while one player wants a more intrusive selective anti-cheat, there will be five more people who don't. VAC is just an anti-cheat that developers can select to use for their games. A lot of them will have their own anti-cheats running alongside VAC to make it more effective. CS:GO alone uses four anti-cheat systems to catch as many cheaters as possible.

Now surely if it was that easy then Valve would have already done the changes?

Well, sometimes it is interesting to see why not...

1) Valve is focused on developing systems that have the least amount of false positives
2) Back in 2014, they tried to make changes to VAC system, but the change was so controversial that Gabe Newell himself had to make a post on Reddit. It's a company. It needs to keep a good image.
3) Even if you can select the type of anti-cheat you want to use (intrusive or not), that is putting A LOT of trust into Valve to making sure that any details that they collect are secured and b) that the connection is not open to malicious practices. I'm sure we can all remember what happened with the ESEA bitcoin mining scandal. If this happened with Valve, a lot more users would lose their trust in the system.

These are just a few main examples. So clearly Valve does not mind having the reputation of "♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ sucks anti-cheat" - a name usually given by those hard-to-detect cheaters - in response to having trust from the community and still having functional anti-cheats to ban pretty much all of these blatant cheaters. And clearly they don't mind you going to other services and using their own better anti-cheats if you want to get better in the game.

Outside of VAC, they have been making a lot of changes in order to make it harder for cheaters to cheat again; prime, trust factor, phone number ban, VACnet are all great examples. VAC as a system has already hit its limit long time ago.

And a final point; let's not forget that an anti-cheat system will still be bypassed regardless of it being intrusive or not. That's just how the game goes.

And some food for thought: Whilst I don't have the statistics, I am going to guess that ESEA has significantly less users than games with VAC has. Now this would mean that a) There is no incentive for users to cheat on ESEA, given that you have to pay for the service and the development of cheats is much more delayed and b) VAC is more likely to be targeted by cheat developers, given that the demand for VAC-bypassable cheats is much higher. Now if we flipped them upside down, ESEA would be bypassed very quickly as well. And it probably already has.