This is so funny because rust has one of the worst cheating situations and majority of their players are windows users, and theres lots of games that have anticheat that allows linux and have notably less significant cheating problems like marvel rivals. in reality rust doesn't take cheating very seriously because if they did they would have more server side software that detects illegitimate behaviour like tons of other games do successfully...... even most popular Minecraft servers have better functioning anti cheat that is completely server side than rust has while getting kernel access to your pc. its pathetic and lazy development tbh and this entire post from them reads like such extreme cope....
If your objection to client-side anti-cheat is that it "doesn't work" what till you see what server-side anti-cheat fails to accomplish!
There's no way with a pure server-side implementation to even try to work out whether the client is using an aimbot or wallhack. No solution is perfect, which is why the best solutions try to combine methods.
These people are delusional, don’t listen to them. Their cognitive dissonance drives them to jump through the biggest hoops to defend something that is simply flat-out wrong. You can't beat most cheaters with a server side anti cheat only, unless you do what World of Tanks does and have everything server-sided which isn't feasible for all games. Take CS2 or CS:GO for example. The game is riddled with cheaters, despite getting multiple VAC updates this year.
I don't think it's cognitive dissonance driving them, I think it's hatred of rootkit anti-cheat that bleeds into other client-side anti-cheat.
People aren't very good at separating different but related things, it seems.
Why would you even send the location of players behind walls? You can just do the visibility check on the server first. But hey that's extra CPU cycles that they don't want to be spending on helping you.
Visibility check of what?
This amounts to making players use thin clients and putting all visual and audio rendering on the server if you want it to work and not suck. Will you be happy to save £1000 on your PC at the cost of having games cost £150 a pop? Thought not. Or did you think the "extra CPU cycles" were just free?
@FishFace @x00z my small thought -> i think today no solution can prevent "cheaters" because you can't differ "cheaters" from users anymore if they want to.
Here is why ->
One PC is running the game -> a second PC emulates Keyboard and mouse inputs using a CAM (Capture Card) / Sound (microphon / digital capture) and an on the Game trained AI.
So what does any "cheat protection" offer if they don't protect against serious cheating ?
PS: "The only still working protection is lan play with control over hardware / software and players like done on real events"
Yes, there is no way to prevent all cheats. However, to prevent as many as possible, you need to use all available methods. It's quite reasonable that kernel-level anti-cheat should not be available, as it it's an overreach and a security risk. However, client-side anti-cheat is not that.
It's a very hard thing to check for though especially with how complex the world can be in games today. Even if it was feasible you don't know where a client will be in a few frames so you basically need to do a "what players can be seen from this general location" check. The higher movement speed the bigger of a volume is your possible viewpoint.
This is also ignoring all the things you need replicated even when you can't see the player such as footsteps or them shooting or interacting with something.