Cheating has always been a problem in FPSs, and it likely won't go away. That's why premier competitions have always been on LAN.

[1] https://www.pcgamer.com/introducing-gameref-the-anti-cheat-h...

[2] Hard to fully obfuscate audio sources, hard to obfuscate hitboxes since you still need them for collision checking (e.g. if a grenade bounces off an enemy player behind a wall—the server does not do all physics for all clients), and this is on top of the engine itself sometimes requiring actual entities, so you're stuck with these dummy entities in memory, and so on.

>CS2FOW uses static baked map geometry. Dynamic occluders such as doors, breakables, props, smokes, particles, and projectiles are intentionally out of scope for now.

Market window on Mirage just became more powerful on these servers :)

Very cool project nonetheless.

There are plenty more questions like paying for mods/review, securing the money, paying for servers, etc.. but my basic question is if cost of entry exceeds cost of reward from cheating has ever been attempted in a game.

Apparently buying a new copy of a $10-20 game isn't enough to keep people away from cheats. Less so when there is prize money on the line or skins (e.g. CS2) worth $100k.

    > Does it cause pop-in when peeking?
    The goal is early reveal, not exact last-millisecond reveal.
    CS2FOW predicts using movement and ping, reveals enemies slightly before exact visibility, and keeps revealed enemies visible briefly. This intentionally leaks a small near-corner window to avoid late pop-in.

There is only one 'fps' I play, it's called holdfast and is about Napoleonic warfare. Muskets are so inaccurate that having a wallhack or an aimbot would be complete nonsense.

There are still people who cheat in other way, but it's extremely limited.

Cheaters killed 90% of the multiplayer game to me.