this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2024
1461 points (98.5% liked)

Games

32636 readers
987 users here now

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Weekly Threads:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

Rules:

  1. Submissions have to be related to games

  2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

  3. No excessive self-promotion

  4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

  5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

  6. No linking to piracy

More information about the community rules can be found here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Now if only they could more clearly communicate when games are playable offline.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] sp3tr4l@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

I mean, anybody could verify it by spending a few hours each on the respective games... But yes, any empirical data would be nice.

No, thats an anecdotal experience, and all it would tell you is the players' perception of how prevalent cheating is... not how prevalent it actually is, not how effective an anti cheat system is at blocking cheaters.

But yes, any empirical data would be nice. For example, a study on the amount of blatant hackers found on lobbies joined in comparable ranks

"It would be great if there was any valid data/research to back up or disprove that thing I said earlier, but there isn't, therefore I am completely justified in saying whatever as I want and acting as if its indisputable!"

Anyway, this isn't exactly misinformation to anybody who has played both games at any decent rank. It's unproved but immediately discernible information.

Again, no.

You made a claim that a particular anti cheat system is better than another.

You keep saying that 'oh anyone can just tell'.

No.

What you are describing is again, at best, player perceptions of cheating prevalence.

The logic you are using is exactly the same logic that people who believe in astrology or woo woo nonsense medical treatments use to justify their efficacy.

... You have nothing but vibes and anecdotes, which you admit are unproved and have no basis in fact, beyond 'i think this is obvious'.

You're just bullshitting.

It is indeed pointless to attempt to get a bullshitter to admit they are bullshitting, when they've already backpedalled by moving goal posts, dismissing the importance of the discussion after being called out for making a specific claim which they can't back up.

You could just admit that ah well shit yeah, I guess I don't have any actual valid reasoning or data to back up my claim, but nope you keep trucking on, doing everything you can to talk around that point instead of addressing it.

[โ€“] Gigasser@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

I mean...bro was just giving an opinion man. He didn't even really say that much originally. I think claiming the "superiority" of something online alot of the times is vibes based. That ain't necessarily bad though. Are people not allowed to give more generalized or vague opinions?