Steamをインストール
ログイン
|
言語
简体中文(簡体字中国語)
繁體中文(繁体字中国語)
한국어 (韓国語)
ไทย (タイ語)
български (ブルガリア語)
Čeština(チェコ語)
Dansk (デンマーク語)
Deutsch (ドイツ語)
English (英語)
Español - España (スペイン語 - スペイン)
Español - Latinoamérica (スペイン語 - ラテンアメリカ)
Ελληνικά (ギリシャ語)
Français (フランス語)
Italiano (イタリア語)
Bahasa Indonesia(インドネシア語)
Magyar(ハンガリー語)
Nederlands (オランダ語)
Norsk (ノルウェー語)
Polski (ポーランド語)
Português(ポルトガル語-ポルトガル)
Português - Brasil (ポルトガル語 - ブラジル)
Română(ルーマニア語)
Русский (ロシア語)
Suomi (フィンランド語)
Svenska (スウェーデン語)
Türkçe (トルコ語)
Tiếng Việt (ベトナム語)
Українська (ウクライナ語)
翻訳の問題を報告
1. Every program someone cheating has that someone not cheating doesn't have isn't automatically a cheat.
2. Many cheats use stealth process methods and append themselves to legitimate programs/processes.
However, large amounts of data needs to be collected so this does not ban legit players.
The system could be "tuned in" using existing VAC statistics, and when the tune-in roughtly match each other, then the system could be pushed into production.
2: The above method could also be applied to loaded DLLs, software injected in other software (even if none of those is a game) and such.
Im not talking about doing a check against one cheating player vs one legit player, instead im talking about doing a match over a pretty large dataset, eg many cheating players vs many legit players. And how large the dataset should be, thats the "tuning" parameter, that needs to be tuned in.