So let me me just make sure I understand what are saying: The anti-cheat you have worked with is designed to flag certain "suspicious" players, who gets a certain number of reports, or maybe exceeds a certain reports/time ratio, for "manual" observation, i.e. having an actual human employee spectating that individual to make an subjective assessment if that person should be punished or not?
Well, that might be a viable design to catch cheaters who get abnormally many reports but other than that, it seems both expensive and time ineffective and also rather unreliable since its up to a human to judge if someone is cheating, especially considering how many matches are played every single hour around the world.
What I mean is that if the devs main goal, by any methods available, is to "flag" suspicious players for reviewing, then in-game data and statistics of a player seem to be a 100x more reliable and cost effective method than manual reports from random players. Abnormal and suspicious player data and stats like, hit accuracy, sudden changes in K/D or win rate, headshot/bodyshot ratio can be collected automatically. Whats the point of relying on manual reports?
Community Manager
