安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
讨论规则及指引
举报此帖
Cheaters there are more and more of them and they don't even hide and they are laughing in the face because I watch every delinquent I've reported and they are still not banned. This whole VAC doesn't work well too slowly if it works at all...Too much time is allowed to cheat cheaters because many cheated people are so frustrated that they start cheating themselves, which gives us the effect that we unfortunately experience. VALVE needs reform. I feel cheated in the game and by those who sell it. Players invest in a small amount of money and deserve fair competition.
It would be good to speed it up, namely that I could send demos to judgment somewhere that would be assessed faster than this funny vac system. Special site where judges from overwatch would rate a demo. It is known that this idea could be improved somehow but wake up Vave! There is no blind insist on the current operation of VAC... We players want the fair competition we deserve because that's why we spent the money.
Instant bans lead to undetectable cheats.
VAC does what it is intended to do. Therefore, it's doing just great.
Other anticheat solutions are also performing to their specification.
There's little for direct comparison since they typically operate in different means to different ends with different criteria in different environments.
Please check my post history for recent post where I gave some comment concerning attempts to compare VAC and the likes of ESEA and FACEIT (I'm not willing to rewrite the whole thing) but generally there are plenty of circumstantial and practical reasons why the systems are different.
Given the number of Steam users on VAC-secured games, the accessibility of VAC within Steamworks, the reliability rate of VAC (particularly given its permanent ban policy) and the challenge faced by valve against the propaganda, social engineering and rapid turnaround posed by the cheat developers, VAC (in entirety, supported by OW, VACNet and the Steam community policies) has been one of the most successful and clever anti-cheat solutions in terms of tackling the issues at heart undermining the cheat-industry.
VAC seems rather slow but it is almost never wrong.
Although the ip banning system has user based bans and SMAC, it helps keep cheaters banned while only compromising certain people getting banned for playing in public IPs already banned.
Both have flaws but i can say, vac is pretty damn effective paired with a user based anti cheat, so either time or multiple reports will get them. We need more CSGO approaches to anti cheat.
And this is why that will never happen, honest people getting bans because of someone with the skill set to use someone else’s IP
Also......
Seems like you know nothing about vac. Its not slow, its delayed.
The slow part refers to the actual detection of cheats, not the delayed banning. And while yes I fully understand that due to the restrictions of the VAC system that it cannot be as aggressive as other anti-cheats that this is also a big downside for it. A lot of cheats have gone extremely long periods of times before even being detected whereas other anti-cheats are able to be more consistent with the detection of cheats.
This is typically obfscated by the delayed bans, and again, is the relevance of the delay. If it were possible to identify when the cheats are detected, it woudl defeat the point of the delayed bans and they would not be an implemented feature and the effectiveness and advantage of VAC would be negated.
Again, on what are you basing this claim?