Install Steam
sign in
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem

Hampshire, United Kingdom (Great Britain)
On paper, yes, a custom or game-specific anti-cheat can react faster and be more targeted than a large, generic solution like EAC. That’s true in theory.
But in practice:
- Behavioral detection is not magic. It’s probabilistic by nature and very sensitive to false positives.
- Server-side validation helps, but it doesn’t suddenly make accusations accurate.
- Being “lighter” doesn’t automatically mean “more accurate”. It often just means less mature, less tested at scale, and more prone to misinterpretation.
The real issue with NGT wasn’t the beautiful and smart tool itself, it was the mindset.
If someone ends up accusing everyone - including bad players - that’s not superior detection, that’s confirmation bias.
im not buying your cheats mate im telling you 3years now xD