Technical Paper on Gaming Cheating

[peewee_RotA]

I'm thinking that the way to get the demo, after flagging a player for review and without getting something questionable directly form the client, is to have wallfly spectate and record the demo. I'm pretty sure that video is not necessary for recording a dm2. But that's probably a ton of work to change the wallfly client for demo recording.

[l0ckp1ck]

its all well and good to have a paper like this with ideas but thats all they will ever be afaiac. Whats the point of introducing another new anticheat system when they will still probably need to load something on their computer for it to work? anticheat isn't even forced on everyone now, so it will only ever be useful to people who actually want to use it, in which case they are most likely not cheaters in the first place if they volunteer to use a latest anticheat setup. i am still of the firm belief everyone should be forced anticheat now, and possible introduce a kick for bad files. i see all the time people with modified weapons or a modified model, they could be nothing, but then again they could be a custom made spike model aswell

[[BTF]Jehar]

I find it interesting that this was posted shortly after a small ruckus over statistical analysis of college test results to look for cheaters. The major complaint there was a simple lack of sufficient sample size, though there were other fundamental problems as well. I don't wager too heavily on the reliability of statistics to produce indications of errant behaviour, especially since in most games there isn't a lot of fine-grain followup. I absolutely love that we have several levels of locking someone down, the simplest being the force of AC on them.
This doesn't cover the validity of AC, but it's a hell of a lot less draconian than what you'd find anywhere else.