Contents

Background ......................................................................................................................................... 2

Purpose of This Toolkit ....................................................................................................................... 3

Company-Based Enforcement ............................................................................................................ 4

Community-Based Enforcement ......................................................................................................... 5

Research Methods .............................................................................................................................. 6

Research Findings ............................................................................................................................... 7

Implementation .................................................................................................................................. 8

Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 10
 ANTI-CHEAT TOOLKIT

Background
Since the beginning of online video games cheating has been apparent, posing a large threat to
game developers. This not only impacted playability, however also player security and enjoyment. It
is imperative that along with function, anti-cheat systems must also meet certain usability criteria to
ensure human factors are sufficiently met.

To ensure an enjoyable and competitive experience to the consumer, game developers had to create
systems and software to detect and prevent cheats along with punishing those who choose to cheat.
With the age of online video games drastically increasing the need to prevent such cheats from
happening is a necessity. Cheats in video games range from using third party software such as aim-
bots or wall cheats to exploiting bugs within an online game such as wall glitching. With the video
game industry growing at an exponential rate, outperforming movies and sports combined in North
America, it is clear to see the need to take matters such as cheating seriously. Along with a global
growth to sales the Esports scene has significantly grown, with Esports garnering almost 500 million
viewers in 2021, rivalling that of mainstream sports (figure 1).

eSports audience worldwide from 2019 - 2024, by type of viewers (millions)

700.00

600.00

500.00

400.00

300.00

200.00

100.00

0.00
2019 2020 2021 2024

eSports enthusiasts Occasional viewers

Figure 1 – Esports audience growth – Newzoo: VentureBeast, Statista 2021.

Esports growth along with overall livestream growth explains the impressive rate at which the
gaming industry is evolving. With all these metrics in consideration it is imperative to ensure
cheating is handled as best as possible. One key issue when developing company-based anti-cheat
software is the need to constantly develop new software, as with each evolution of anti-cheat brings
an evolution of cheating too. Thus, other methods to anti-cheat have been introduced besides that
of pure software, this being community-based enforcement. Community-based enforcement refers
to allowing the community to regulate itself, which can be seen to have its own positives and
negatives, with most notably Counter Strike: Global Offensive introducing its own community-
enforcement anti-cheat called ‘Overwatch’ which is described as a player driven cheat jurisdiction
process. Throughout this toolkit the advantages and disadvantages to both company-based and
community-based enforcement will be discussed, showcasing through research the most
appropriate system to use, and whether both used in conjunction are a necessity with modern
online video games.

Purpose of This Toolkit

As the growth of online video games continues developers have a duty to ensure gameplay at a
casual and competitive level are both protected from cheaters. Cheating will continue to grow along
with the rise in online video game presence, thus understanding the different routes one can go
down to defend a game against cheating is imperative at an early stage in development. The key
aims of this toolkit include:

• Arm game developers with adequate information regarding anti-cheat systems.

• Focusing on the players, not the technology.
• Share the findings gathered through studies.
• Showcase the toolkit design.

By focusing on the player, it is important to understand your audience, when designing a

competitive game, it is a priority that the player can progress and feel a sense of achievement
uninterrupted from cheaters ruining their experiences or even haltering their progression, this is
what leads to players abandoning an online video game for another similar online game, especially
with regards to competitive games. When developing a more casual gaming experience security is
still important, often community-based enforcement is the sole anti-cheat in more casual online
video games, however relying purely on the player can become troublesome for the player. Putting
all the responsibility on the player to determine whether someone is cheating or not can make
playing the game a chore which is the last thing wanted when designing a casual online gaming
experience.

Findings from a study analysing company-based and community-based enforcement is used

throughout this study to gain knowledge as to how better the toolkit. This study looks at user
research, analysing a questionnaire rich with quantitative and qualitative data about both types of
enforcement, along with investigating the Overwatch system in Counter Strike which is the most
well-known form of community-based enforcement. A cognitive walkthrough and heuristic
evaluation are used to analyse Overwatch, giving insight into how the system works and how
community-enforcement could be improved.

Overall, the main purpose of this toolkit is to showcase the anti-cheat enforcement design created
for this toolkit which would result in the ideal scenario for both a competitive and casual online
video game.

Company-Based Enforcement
Displayed below is a basic design model as to how anti-cheat systems work (figure 2). This section
discusses the main positives and negatives of company-based enforcement and the general use case
for this form of anti-cheat.

Figure 2 – company-based enforcement design model

Online video games often use third-party software when it comes to company-based enforcement.
With the most notable systems being Valve Anti-Cheat (VAC), Easy Anti-cheat and BattlEye,
sometimes companies opt to develop their own anti-cheat software such as Riot’s Vanguard anti-
cheat. Company-based enforcement tends to lend itself best for competitive gameplay, thus when
developing an online game, it is key to outline who the games target audience is. This form of
enforcement has several positive and negative aspects, the positive side of company-based
enforcement is knowing that any player who uses outdated or free cheating software will most likely
get banned, it takes very modern and expensive cheats to often get past the major third-party anti-
cheat systems. Along with this most third-party anti-cheat systems are constantly evolving ensuring
a consistent protection of your game and its players. The main disadvantages, however, are the
difficulties in developing your own anti-cheat system and if you opt to choose a third-party anti-
cheat system like many developers it can be expensive, recently however Epic Games made Easy
Anti-Cheat free for game developers. Besides the costs, you as the developer are relying on another
company which is not what every developer wants. Other issues include the more expensive cheats
or technically advanced cheats which often go unnoticed by the aforementioned anti-cheat systems.
With a competitive game it is easier for the developer to entrust another company to deal with
cheats and cheaters where this toolkit demonstrates how the developer should take extra steps to
ensure security and not rely solely on third party software. Which leads on to community-based
enforcement and its uses.

Community-Based Enforcement
Below can be seen a basic model displaying how community-based enforcement works (figure 3),
throughout this section the positives and negatives of community-based enforcement will be
outlined, discussing the most formative community-enforcement Overwatch in Counter Strike.

Figure 3 – community-based enforcement model

The most notable form of community-based enforcement is that of Overwatch which is used by
Valve with Counter Strike: Global Offensive and Dota 2. Other games which use community
enforcement include massive multiplayer online games such as Final Fantasy Online which relies
solely on community-enforcement where Valve use Overwatch in conjunction with Valve Anti-Cheat.
Another game which uses community enforcement alongside company enforcement is League of
Legends which uses tribunal system as a way to monitor community behaviour along with Vanguard
Anti-Cheat. As previously mentioned, community-based enforcement has its own positives and
negatives much like company-based enforcement. The positives of community-based enforcement
include a cheaper form of anti-cheat which does not rely on third-party software, along with this the
involvement players feel when contributing to determining whether someone is cheating or not can
prove to create a stronger sense of community surrounding the online player base. Having
community-based enforcement can also act as a deterrent to prevent people thinking about
cheating, knowing that a game does not solely rely on the common company-based enforcement
anti-cheats makes it a lot harder for someone cheating to get away without being banned. On the
other hand, the main disadvantage to community-based enforcement is the varied ideas that
humans tend to have, thus it is important to implement a system where only players of a certain skill
level can determine whether another player is cheating or not. As previously mentioned, it is also
important not to have community-based enforcement seem to be a chore, and only something the
player can choose to opt in to if they feel they want to.

Research Methods
Throughout this toolkit three different research methods were used to help discuss, analyse, and
evaluate the best design method to implement regarding anti-cheat systems. The three methods
included are user feedback through a questionnaire including quantitative and qualitative data, a
heuristic evaluation and lastly a cognitive walkthrough. The heuristic evaluation along with the
cognitive walkthrough analyse Overwatch in Counter Strike which is one of the most popular forms
of combined anti-cheat which utilises both community and company-based enforcement. Below is a
simple diagram showcasing how Valve learns off its own data from community and company-based
enforcement to better the anti-cheat system it uses overall (figure 4).

Figure 4 – CS: GO overwatch system design model

A questionnaire was used comprising of over 50 participants to help understand what players feel
about anti-cheat in the games that they play. The participants came from a plethora of games,
including competitive first-person shooters along with more casual games such as massively
multiplayer online role-playing games. The study was conducted by Jacob Merrick (2021) and
included several usability testing methods, which showcased the flaws in Overwatch and the need to
improve the user interface for player retention and game longevity.

Research Findings
Primarily a questionnaire was used including over 50 participants, the findings of this questionnaire
showed that of the participants were split between which form of enforcement was best and those
who understood what community-based enforcement was thought that a combination of both
company and community-based enforcement would lead to a more enjoyable and fulfilling gaming
experience. With participants stating many positives and negatives for both forms of anti-cheat
enforcement, discussing company-based enforcement many participants found that it is often very
effective as it can deal with large quantities of cheaters without the need for human input, however,
can often mis the harder to detect exploits. When discussing community-based enforcement
participants found that allowing players to determine whether someone is cheating or not is good
for a healthy community with real people determining results rather that software which can go
wrong. A large quantity of the people who preferred community-based enforcement also stated that
a combination of both forms would be the most ideal scenario for an online video game, combining
the best parts of both enforcement strategies.

The heuristic evaluation based on the Counter Strike Overwatch anti-cheat used Jakob Nielsen’s 10
heuristics to determine whether Overwatch met specific usability guidelines (Image 1). Nielsen’s 10
heuristics are:

• Visibility of System Status • Recognition Rather than Recall

• Match between System and Real World • Flexibility and Efficiency of Use
• User Control and Freedom • Aesthetic and Minimalist Design
• Consistency and Standard • Recognise, Diagnose and Recover from Errors
• Error Prevention • Help and Documentation

The areas in which Overwatch fell short were that of error prevention, aesthetic and minimalist
design, recognise, diagnose and recover from errors and lastly help and documentatiion. With error
prevention Overwatch does not permit the user to make changes to their Overwatch resolution once
it has been submitted, thus if someone mis identifies a cheater it could cause someone to be banned
unjustly. From a design aspect it would not make sense allowing the user to retract their resolution
however, it would be beneficial to add a confirmation before submitting their results to ensure users
are not wrongfully banned. The aesthetic to Overwatch is very dated, causing players to not enjoy
using it, aesthetic and minamalism are very important aspects to user experience and having a
modern feel will increase user retention. As mentioned Overwatch does not allow include error
prevention, it also lacks appropriate error recognition, leaving the diagnoses and recovery to Steam
which is the platform Counter Strike is played on, implementing solutions inside the game would be
a beneficial addition when designing community-based enforcement, allowing the user to fully
understand when they are making a mistake. This leads onto help and documentation, of which
Overwatch has none, it requires users navigate to the Counter Stike page on steam to find any help
or documentation. With Overwatch being a unique system that only players of a certain skill level
can unlock it would help considerably to implement in-game help or even links in-game to the
documentation on the Steam page.

The cognitive walkthrough analysed 4 tasks to see if Overwatch could successfully execute them.
These tasks are:

• Unlock the Overwatch feature • Scan through the suspects’ film

• Navigate to the Overwatch button • Determine the outcome of the film

During the cognitive walkthrough it was found that unlocking Overwatch was a difficult task, it relies
on multiple factors that a new player would not be aware of. This being said, these requirements are
a necessity to prevent inexperienced players deciding whether another player is cheating in game.
Once the feature was unlocked it was apparent to the user, being clear that the new feature is now
available. Navigating to the Overwatch button was very simple given the user new the Overwatch
icon, without this prior knowledge however, it would prove difficult. Using text instead of the icon
would lead to poor design as it would not match the overall aesthetic therefore this is necessary. It is
also apparent to the user that you are sent to the Overwatch system once you click on the icon.
Scanning through the film proved to be rather simple, all processes were simple and allowed the
user to know when they have achieved their desired outcome. Lastly determining the outcome of
the film is also straightforward, the user is given a pop-up screen telling them to choose a resolution
for the player they are assessing, along with this upon successful completion the user is rewarded
with in game experience.

Implementation
Based upon all the research conducted, and breath background surrounding anti-cheat systems in
online video games it seems most appropriate to use a combination of both company-based and
community-based enforcement. Following a similar path to Counter Strike, this being said many user
interface changes are needed to make the community-based aspect more accessible and user
friendly. This toolkit strongly suggests developers use both forms of anti-cheat however, if
developers must choose one, then it is extremely dependant on the type of game. Competitive
games rely on company-based enforcement due to the accessibility, time efficiency and overall
accuracy of such systems, however the use of community-based enforcement is a useful addition,
allowing users to feel fulfilment knowing they are contributing to banning cheaters, along with being
able to catch people using more advanced cheats than the anti-cheat can detect. When developing
more casual games with few competitive aspects such as many massively multiplayer online role-
playing games community enforcement can be seen to suffice in terms of anti-cheat.

Overall, both forms of anti-cheat are extremely beneficial, thus implementing a design which
incorporates the two would prove to be a successful form of anti-cheat regardless of the game genre
or competitive level. Below can be seen a design model to demonstrate how the community-based
enforcement and company-based enforcement can work together (figure 5).

Figure 5 – toolkit design model

This design showcases how both community-based and company-based enforcement can work in
conjunction to allow for the best player experience. A key aspect that has to be addressed however
is the user interface, the use of heuristic evaluation and cognitive walkthrough showcased how
Overwatch in Counter Strike needs to be updated to ensure a more pleasant user experience. This
solely refers to the community-based enforcement anti-cheat, when permitting the user to help
monitor cheaters within your game you want the experience to be as good as possible, otherwise
players will be less likely to take part in the community-based enforcement rendering it useless.
Summary
In conclusion this toolkit highly encourages game developers to implement a dual anti-cheat system,
utilising both company-based and community-based enforcement strategies. As discussed, if the
developer wants to omit the design implemented within this toolkit, then the rationale for
implementing one form of anti-cheat over the other is discussed, however the main emphasis
revolves around the dual system being introduced.