Russian Game Developer Bans and Doxes 6,700 Cheaters (techcrunch.com) 91
An anonymous reader shares a report: Cheaters are an annoying part of almost every online video game. And banning them has become an important routine for game developers and publishers to keep their users happy. The publisher of Escape from Tarkov, a game developed by the Russian company Battlestate Games, has added an unusual twist to the routine: naming and shaming the cheaters. In the last week, Battlestate Games said it banned 6,700 cheaters, and it published all their nicknames on publicly available spreadsheets. "We want honest players to see the nicknames of cheaters to know that justice has been served and the cheater who killed them in a raid has been punished and banned," Battlestate Games' spokesperson Dmitri Ogorodnikov told TechCrunch.
Meanwhile (Score:5, Funny)
Ukrainians perma-ban 100,000+ cheaters.
Re:Meanwhile (Score:4, Informative)
Ukrainians perma-ban 100,000+ cheaters.
Closer to 200,000 at this point.
Re: (Score:1)
my smiyalisya z us'ogo ofisu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Would have been funnier if you typed in a Russian accent about Putin's Ukraine War Game (if that TM trick works).
Preview says the ampersand TM fails on ye olde Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
Closer to 200,000 at this point.
Depending on whom you ask. The issue with an ongoing war is that everything is a narrative with imperfect information. Actual verifiable numbers don't typically come out until well after any war is won or lost.
Re: (Score:3)
I hope the next Russian game is called "Escape to Taman".
Re: (Score:1)
I just came to eat the popcorn, but this was the angle I anticipated and it already got the Funny it deserved, albeit the underlying reality is not funny. This is even a case where the vacuous Subject seems okay.
I wonder how many members of the cannon fodder brigade wants the defect code? Or even the surrender code? Cheating death in such cases?
Okay, I can't resist my latest and craziest solution approach, but remember we're talking about a big-league nut over there. How about offering to break NATO into pi
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The NATO thing is a red herring for consumption by viewers of Fox News and Russian state media (but I repeat myself). No one can possibly invade Russia, or even pose a credible threat. They are a nuclear state.
In any case, if NATO is a threat to Russia, why would they want even more NATO states on their frontier? That's what will happen if they succeed at conquering Ukraine.
Re: (Score:2)
NATO's only realistic goal is to make Russian imperialism too expensive pursue. Actually forcing some kind of regime change is not just unlikely to work, it's an incredibly dangerous gamble.
Re: (Score:2)
There are literally Ukrainian sabotage teams operating in Russia and have been for quite a while. Problem with strategic nuclear deterrent is that it's all or nothing. Which means that having a few dosen civilians tortured or killed each month is insufficient cause for a nuclear retaliation.
Regardless, Russian goal isn't the rest of Ukraine they don't yet hold after Russians took Crimea. Ukraine is simply on the path to the rest of the goals. The goals are the same that all Russian empires had for last thre
Re: (Score:3)
There are literally Ukrainian sabotage teams operating in Russia and have been for quite a while.
Yep. Remind me, when did that start happening...?
And since we now know that Russians would get annihilated in a conventional Russo-NATO war if Americans get directly involved, and since they view this war as a war for their existence, when they lose their push into Romania and Poland is when they will actually be forced by their ideological views to escalate to nuclear.
They could always try staying within thei
Re: (Score:2)
>Yep. Remind me, when did that start happening...?
At the start of the war. You seem to be running peacetime morality points as if they're relevant beyond propaganda. I have news for you. There's a war going on. No one relevant cares, which is why in spite of US and other allies making a point not giving Ukraine long(er) range tactical weapons specifically to avoid Ukrainians attacking on the other side of the border, Ukraine has been (correctly) treating this as a war for their survival and operating in
Re: (Score:2)
Historically, very poorly. When they aren't anchored to those points I mention above, next invader would run a very long way through the aforementioned flat plane
Bullshit. Russia can never be invaded again, and you know it.
Stop carrying water for the worst people alive.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? What is stopping said invasions? Are you going to say "MAD" because you genuinely have no idea how it works? Because you'd have to ignore Chechnya story entirely, not to mention the current position of much of NATO's Eastern Flank nations to make a statement this ignorant. Hint: MAD only stops full on wars of a kind where nation has no other options but to commit murder-suicide with its antagonists. Everything less than that remains on the table. We're seeing that with slow escalation of supply to U
Re: (Score:2)
If they can't fight off Chechnya, maybe they shouldn't have invaded Ukraine.
Fighting off NATO is, of course, impossible without the use of nuclear weapons, and everyone on both sides understands that very well.
I don't know if you even qualify as "useful" in the "useful idiot" department.
Re: (Score:2)
As for Fukuyama, he's right, just at the wrong time. Russia's strategy is clearly to continue their devolution from a world superpower to a North Korea-style basket case that the rest of us will be forced to feed and indulge patiently, like a misbehaving toddler.
For instance, one possibility is that the settlement of the Ukraine war will involve an offer for us to buy their nuclear arsenal, so that they can afford the reparations that will be required in order to shed their pariah-state status.
Most likely,
Re: (Score:2)
Funny how I called it. Fukuyama was wrong in almost every single major prediction he made in that neoliberal religious text of his that passed as an analysis in book form.
It never ceases to amaze me that people read a book that makes predictions for the future, live out the future where nothing works like predicted, and then conclude that "prediction were right, they just didn't happen yet". And yet, here we are getting just that.
Re: (Score:2)
>If they can't fight off Chechnya, maybe they shouldn't have invaded Ukraine.
How much do you know about history of Russia? This statement suggests "little to nothing", which is odd considering just how deeply opinionated you are on the subject. Are you perhaps suffering from the peak Dunning-Kruger here?
>Fighting off NATO is, of course, impossible without the use of nuclear weapons, and everyone on both sides understands that very well.
Poles and Balts sure don't, with their insistence on more and more
Re: (Score:2)
Are Poles and Balts stupid or do they and myself know something you don't?
They know that Russia can't be trusted to behave rationally. It's all well and good for us to to say "They'd never attack a NATO member, it'd be insanely stupid," but then it was insanely stupid to attack Ukraine.
Basically, the Russians have proven to be the bad guys we were always told they were... but, fortunately, they have also proven to be far dumber than we were told they were..
Re: (Score:2)
>They know that Russia can't be trusted to behave rationally.
And yet, they and myself agree on the fact that they are perfectly rational, which is why they are predictable.
To you, Russia seems irrational because you do not understand the subject well enough. And your conclusion has so far been "from my ideological position, I cannot see Russia's rationale, ergo they must be irrational". This leaves out the obvious and far more likely alternative. You don't understand the subject well enough to understand
Re: (Score:2)
>You'll realize how narrow your understanding trully is. Dunning-Kruger +1, you're beyond the peak.
11/10 self own. You just can't stop trying to kick me, slipping and falling right on your face.
Re: (Score:2)
And you didn't even google the Dunning-Kruger curve to find out just how badly you missed, you just doubled down on eating dirt. This is why I find you so enjoyable.
Re: (Score:2)
How else am I going to get you out of the pit you managed to fall into?
Re: (Score:2)
I will readily admit that when it comes to digging people out of the holes they themselves fell into, I'm not an expert.
Re: (Score:2)
No one can possibly invade Russia, or even pose a credible threat. They are a nuclear state.
Even without nukes, Russia would be quite safe from invasion. Given their history, it is understandable that they are paranoid about being invaded, and are well prepared for such a thing. All those logistical problems that have plagued them in Ukraine would not exist if they were defending. The morale problems would not exist. Their air defences are far better than their ability to suppress enemy defences ( as seen in Ukraine).
Nukes protect them from being attacked in retaliation for
Re: (Score:2)
MATO would not be NATO, but it would be smaller and therefore harder to accuse of being an offensive threat. But attacking MATO would trigger a regional response and, through the dual members, immediately threaten to draw NATO into the war. (Which is related to why Lavrov recently got laughed at for claiming that Ukraine started the war.)
I do agree with you about the "credible threat", but only if you accept the premise that MAD is still credible, and it seems clear that Putin no longer thinks so. Unless th
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Russia is not going to compromise. Ever. In case you haven't noticed that. There are some people you can't bargain with. Chamberlain learned this the hard way, why can't we just learn from history once in a while?
Re: (Score:2)
Russia is free to destroy themselves in the process. I don't think anyone is even suggesting a compromise. Not the West and not Ukraine. After Russia completes its little special operation, weaker than when it started, it's going to take a great deal of time before they'll be ready to invade the next neighbor. In the meantime, we expect significant a significant resistance in an occupied Ukraine to make things rather unpleasant for Russian forces.
The problem with nukes is they are kind of useless if you wan
Re: (Score:1)
Meanwhile, Ukraine is actually in the position Russia creams the sheets for. Being in the existential "do or die" scenario in defence of themselves, yet they show remarkable restraint while their invading enemy shows as little as inhumanly possible. And no one related to this situation is surprised by much of it, unlike the stupendously vast swaths of useful idiots we seem to swimming in suddenly. I am surprised by them...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It's highly doubtful that there will be an occupied Ukraine. At this point, even returning to the pre-2014 status is on the table. And Russia will be broke after this war. Without international credit, without any esteem internationally but most of all, without any respect for their army. Which in turn means that nobody will turn to them as a protective power anymore. If you want protection from "the West", go to China. Russia can't even win their own wars easily, let alone wars they don't really care about
Re: (Score:2)
I'm confident Russia will declare they have occupied or "subdued" Ukraine, perhaps as early as late this year. But that we'll find the Kremlin's definition of occupy to be alien and not line up with any known dictionary. (I know, I'm so cynical I almost sound Russian).
Last I checked Russia is still occupying parts of Georgia or South Ossetia. Russia has been pretty active during the 21st century in backing break-away states in the old Soviet bloc. With more successful instances than failures. Ukraine is his
Re: (Score:1)
Yes they are. They are compromising themselves right now. Ten days after the War started, they lost. Now they are just deciding how bad that loss will be.
Turns out they want it all-the-way bad, and we haven't even arrived at the good part of that, yet.
Of course, if they all kill themselves, there will be no one left to punish, so there's that. This does seem to be the current 'plan'.
Re: (Score:2)
Russia is not going to compromise. Ever. In case you haven't noticed that. There are some people you can't bargain with. Chamberlain learned this the hard way, why can't we just learn from history once in a while?
Worse than that. The Russians have started using some very clever tactics [youtu.be].
Re: (Score:2)
Mostly sad concurrence, though I'm inclined to say "Putin" where you said "Russia". I think this really is one man's war and more evidence of why dictatorship isn't the best "management" system. "Benevolent dictator" is an oxymoron.
Re: (Score:2)
Putin can't fold anyway. If he does, he's done for. If he's lucky he ends up in The Hague, but it's more likely he won't even survive getting out of Russia before someone who has way too much to lose should he blab arranges an accident.
Russia is being ruined with every day that passes in this war, and Russia can't get out. Russia really is fucked.
Re: (Score:2)
Again, mostly concurrence, though my summary is from a different angle. This war started as an existential threat to Ukraine, based on a fake threat to Russia. There was never any existential threat to Russia, but the war has definitely become an existential threat for Putin himself. He is now in a race condition of how long he can fool people into thinking he is strong as he becomes weaker and weaker.
Dictators rarely get to retire peacefully, which is why so many of them insist on the "for life" bit. And I
Re: (Score:2)
There is an existential threat to Russia, but it's not Ukraine. It's not even NATO. It's home made.
Russia is dying. Take a look at their demographics. Not only is their population shrinking, they have a critical lack of people in the 20-35 year demographics. And it doesn't look too swell for the younger years either.
They tried to fight this with benefits for having kids... which promptly made the "wrong" people breed. The minorities (you know, the ones that Putin is now sending to die in Ukraine), but the "
Re: (Score:2)
Concurrence on homemade threats, but there are many of them. Mostly you seem to be going into dangerous eugenics territory. My simplistic answer is that I think each person should have the right to a descendant, but we don't have to play the genetics game the way Ma Nature does. Her watchmaker really is blind, so her "solution" to the random genetic mixing problem is for at least half of the children to die before reproducing... Most people don't want four kids just so the unlucky two can die, but we now ha
Re: (Score:2)
How about offering to break NATO into pieces to make it less of a "threat" to Mother Russia?
Or, stay with me here, how about we break Russia into pieces to make it less of a threat (no quotes needed) to the rest of the world?
Re: (Score:2)
So where do you draw the line? How many pieces do you want to break China into? And the US? And Great Britain? And maybe India and South America and Africa need some more pieces, too?
Or the historical angle? The Czars were terminated and the Soviet Union was already broken into pieces, and yet here we are again.
But you didn't really ask about the scare quotes, so... I'll just say that the dual members would increase the defensive capacity.
Re: (Score:2)
pseudoanonymous is good enough (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
This could be iffy in the US... (Score:2)
Doxing cheaters could be an iffy legal challenge, because the software company would have to show their exact method of detecting and dealing with cheaters so that their allegations are provably true. If the software company said that it was secret, then the plaintiff could allege that the accusation of cheating is defamation of character. This is why most places just stop at bans, which are the equivalent of booting someone out of one's business, and have a ton of court precedent. Naming and shaming wil
Re: (Score:1)
Re: This could be iffy in the US... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The article is click bait in that the players were NOT doxxed. Their nicknames were published, not their private information that identifies them in the real world.
So from a legal point of view, there would be no issues in the United States.
Re: (Score:2)
There shouldn't be any players in the US, as they would be violating sanctions if they purchased a russian game.
So they are trying to stemp the tide... (Score:2)
..of people quitting after g0ats video..
That 6700 sounds like a low number in that case.
kids (Score:2)
My kids keep asking me to help them with cheats because they feel like they cannot compete with all of the cheaters. They are not appreciating the high road.
Re: (Score:2)
Cheaters just like to ruin everyone else's fun. That's their fun. Best to just avoid competitive multiplayer games since cheating always seems to be rampant anyway. If not actual cheating, you get people that are pro players that want to play against noobs so they can own them with ease. Lot's of people love feeling like gods and getting other players to rage quit.
I realize a lot of companies have gone to great lengths to come up with match-making services to try and balance things out and keep things fun.
Re: (Score:2)
> you get people that are pro players that want to play against noobs so they can own them with ease. Lot's of people love feeling like gods and getting other players to rage quit.
I get this in my house. My oldest will 'spawn kill' my youngest just so he can't play, good times.
hmm (Score:2)
I know this is kind of a cliche to ask at this point, but what pleasure do people get from cheating? Like, it kind of makes it not a game anymore?
Re: (Score:1)
Interesting... You reminded me of the old days when I was involved in some online games from the developer's side... I wasn't actually one of the developers, but I heard that the main cheaters were lawyers and their main tactic involved using two phone lines from their offices. Just hearsay and if I said more I might get sued, eh? I might even be confusing that game with the earlier Decwars...
Re: (Score:2)
It's similar to the question of why high school boys want to own a car with an obnoxiously-loud exhaust system. It helps them achieve popularity with high-school girls.
Not by directly appealing to them -- because how many girls like lowriders with fart pipes? -- but by enhancing their social standing among their male peers. Cheating at video games has the same effect: "Now here's someone who really pwns the n00bs."
Nothing in biology makes sense except when viewed through the lens of evolution. Same with
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that the high school girls don't give a fuck about your skill in some computer game.
Ask any geek, ever.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: hmm (Score:2)
There are three main reasons why people cheat.
#1 trolling/griefing
#2 to bypass grinding
#3 technical challenge of creating cheats.
Appearing good at the game is much lower in the list, behind cheating because you believe everyone else is cheating.
Re: (Score:2)
Read my post again, moving your lips this time if necessary.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, who pooped in your morning cereals?
But allow me to spell it out so even you can grasp it: It doesn't affect girls in any way. The only people it impresses are of the same group you belong to: Dateless wonders no girl gives a fuck about.
Good For Them! (Score:3)
I don't have any of this publisher's games, but I do salute them! I'm still HUGELY pissed (after all these years, decades even) by being run off from a very pleasurable and interesting game. Remember the MechWarrior games, with those big heavily armed and widely varied robotic biped weapon systems? I really enjoyed them, but they quickly became totally unplayable with all the cheaters and hacks that immediately appeared. And I never saw the publishers doing a damned thing to deter it either! Well, they deterred themselves right out of my money and playing, that 's for sure.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What of local lan servers with trusted friends and whitelisted internet clients from known IRL relationships?
You need to find people who have something in common, and find people who are willing to jump through the massive hoops required to make something like that work. LAN servers? CG-NAT is a thing, and even more increasingly LAN clients are not. It's 2023. You can't even guarantee that two computers next to each other can play a co-op game without Steam or some other online matchmaking service being involved in the process.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
so these are likely just players doing dumb things to get caught.
So not actually meaningless at all then. Just because a smart cheater exists doesn't mean the game isn't objectively better by booting off idiot scriptkiddies.
Reporting mechanisms suck (Score:2)
I've reported cheaters before. If you're lucky you'll get some vanilla message saying "thank you for your report, but we won't be able to tell you the outcome of your action". That sucks. It would be nice if there were some acknowledgement that at the very least somebody investigated the report, and preferably what the outcome was. In particular games, cheating is rampant and it's like there is a void where feedback should be.
Same goes for scam advertisements on the likes of YouTube. The service is a comple
"Doxxing" (Score:2)
Unless it's posting the real names, addresses, and phone numbers of cheaters this is hardly doxxing.