1059
this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2025
1059 points (99.3% liked)
Linux Gaming
21512 readers
136 users here now
Discussions and news about gaming on the GNU/Linux family of operating systems (including the Steam Deck). Potentially a $HOME away from home for disgruntled /r/linux_gaming denizens of the redditarian demesne.
This page can be subscribed to via RSS.
Original /r/linux_gaming pengwing by uoou.
No memes/shitposts/low-effort posts, please.
Resources
WWW:
Discord:
IRC:
Matrix:
Telegram:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Nobody can have proof of that, because no such proof can ever exist. How would you ever have a proven correct number of cheaters not detected?
It can be tested in closed systems but it's not something you can easily define the success rate of because the cheats are constantly evolving and game updates close or introduce vulnerabilities.
There is still value of having an anti-cheat even if it does not have a high chance of catching cheaters, so long as it keeps false positives to a minimum.
You can die in a car accident, even if you wear a seat belt.
LOL what's the value of a seatbelt? You're either very dull or a troll. Maybe both.
You failed to understand the parallel between my example and the topic at hand, so I'm proud to announce that you've passed the idiot test with flying colors!
Pro tip: apples and oranges can be compared and contrasted. They have a large variety of similarities and differences.
Lol, I can't even play around with a satirical condescending tone because you're too dense to pick up on it.
I guess there are people with lead skulls! (/s)
Bye-bye shitstain!
Doesn't matter. I will not install a rootkit
There is evidence kernel level anti cheat can still be bypassed.
A game blocks cheats or it doesn't. Only cheat providers and gaming companies will have those numbers and I'm not sure they are going to release them.
Depends on your definition of effective. Both are still certainly too much. I haven't seen one that's 100% effective.
Then I'd argue there isn't an effective anti cheat. Valorant definitely has cheaters.
By your definition, anti cheat stops cheaters or it doesn't lmfao what does other games have to do with it? Can you provide sources that valorant only has 1 cheater?
So you have no evidence?
Got anything with up to date data?
Right after an update, so you think the cheat providers just gave up? So you don't have recent data?
That source is biased. However looking at their ban types, behavior type is less than 5% probably. I'd imagine it should've been majority for an anti-cheat that works well.
Any server-side anti-cheat really. You might argue they don't exist but that's the whole point. They will become effective once they start to develop, and maybe we are actually seeing that now.
Didn't read past first sentence. Don't want to waste my time with a kernel level anti-cheat fan.
That's a neat way to miss the good point about server side solutions. Which would be the absence of intrusive client side code.
You developed software and games? Well I cracked them haha. Have fun detecting puny exploits like 3rd party processes. Moving data our of PC because it could be stolen by cheaters or kernel level something? That's where your acceptance of all of this have led you.
Yeah good luck providing such evidence for any kind of game or anti-cheat.
Personally, I hate kernel level ac and it made me actually stop playing few games and avoid similar ones. Had enough of mere games screwing up with my PC through EAC and EAC ignoring my reports for years.