Previous Anti-cheat articles:RGL Anti-cheat RevampRGL Anti-Cheat Updates
Cheating Ban Duration Updated
- 1st offense: 2-Years
- 2nd offense: Permanent Ban
- Map Exploits: 3-Months
- Script Abuse: Warning based on impact, otherwise 3-month ban †
- Game Exploits: Warning based on impact, otherwise 3-24 month ban ‡
- League Ban evasion: 6-Months and reapplies the length of all active and pending Game Integrity related bans
* = Repeat offenders for the following will double their ban length for each new offense, with the 3rd offense resulting in a permanent ban.
† = Warnings are only applicable to scripts noted in section [1003.2] Script Abuse
‡ = Warnings are only applicable to exploits noted in section [1003.3] Game Exploit
The impact is based on the situation and the number of times abused. Examples include scripts randomly clicked with no one around versus used in front of the enemy team or used once on accident with no one around versus used many times throughout the game.
[1003.3] - Game Exploits UpdateBox shadow
exploits now result in a full cheating ban as this exploit allows players to gain a competitive edge over the opposing team by giving the user information they normally would not have access to, similar to sound scripts and any other ESP cheat. Sniper scope removal
exploits now vary on its usage and the situation to determine the impact. For example, those with the script who quickly offclass for a very short period (ie 30secs) and gain no bonus information due to no sniper scope will only receive a warning. Players that use it full time, for prolonged periods, multiple times, or have gained an advantage due to its usage will face the full 3-month ban. In extreme cases where the player abused the scope removal script and gained a significant advantage will receive a 2-year ban.
Report Submission Etiquette
Ever since our Anti-Cheat revamp
this year, the overall growth of RGL and due to COVID, the Anti-Cheat team has received dozens of reports regarding cheaters in RGL in the past few months alone (This is more than has been received for most of its existence). Unfortunately, the way these players are being reported is actively hindering
AC’s ability to easily, quickly, and quietly catch and ban cheaters in our league. With that in mind, the AC team has created a list of “Dos and Don’ts” for reporting.
The Dos and Don’ts of AC Reporting
- Do: Provide multiple ticks for the demo files you have provided
- Do: Give AC time to go over the cases you have reported
- Do: Continue to provide new demos and ticks of the player you reported
- Do: Avoid tampering with AC’s ability to gather more evidence after the report evidence
- Do: Review gathered evidence a few times to double-check findings by yourself or in a private setting with trustworthy friends
- Don’t: Witch hunt players on public forums with the evidence you have compiled.
- Don’t: Share your evidence or warn player(s)/team(s) in the division(s)
- Don’t: Have you and your friends spam the report form with the same three clips or pieces of evidence.
- Don’t: Harass the player you reported and their team
- Don’t: Impersonate others or use alt accounts to try and get POV demos from a player
- Don’t: Report a scrim or match because you thought something was suspicious without evidence
Violation of the “Don’ts” may lead to a warning or a suspension.
This list of “Dos and Don’ts” will be added to the rulebook ([1002.3] - Witch-Hunting
and the reporting form.
Many reports received are just a demo link with no ticks or context provided, which means AC needs to go through the demo in its entirety just to find specific instances of suspected cheating that may or may not exist. With the massive volume of incoming reports, this is an incredibly inefficient way to deal with cases and is mentally taxing on those reviewing every second of these demos in slow motion. If you provide ticks and explanations to what you found in the demo file, it speeds up the process immensely. A report is meant to be a tip that may lead to a potential case for AC to pick up -- a link to a demo without any specifics is not an effective tip for AC to pick up on
We are looking for players to confirm or disprove their suspicions of an individual before submitting the report. Reports without any validation or player review eat up days of review time due to staff having to widen the scope of search beyond just the demos that were attached or having to prioritize the cases with more context behind them. Going forth, AC will reject submissions with only links and very little context as AC cannot handle the vast number of reports based on hunches, no ticks, and no context
Tipping off Suspects
Anti-Cheat cases may take many months to acquire the necessary evidence to justify a ban where there is a 100% confidence in the conclusions. The more public you make your case and evidence, the worse off AC is trying to find evidence that is largely missed by reporters
. The criteria for evidence RGL AC is extremely strict and requires high-quality pieces of evidence to even build a concrete case for a ban, which simply is not the case for most public evidence. Having potential evidence be public and spreading it around will easily land it in the hands of a supposed cheater. Not only does this allow for the cheater to fix their mistakes to make it harder to be caught, but they will also know to lay low, allowing suspicions around them to calm down. This has happened to a large extent in several recent cases, drastically slowing down the investigation. If the suspect does get banned, they often attempt to use the public “evidence” to reject their ban, even though Anti-Cheat gathers much more undeniable evidence in cheating than the evidence that is publicly shared or included in a report. It should also be noted that publicizing a potential suspect has no impact on how quickly a case gets handled by RGL AC
. This is done to keep the evidence gathering procedure as unbiased and untampered as possible. It also avoids AC from potentially incorrectly clearing or issuing a ban without full confidence behind the ban. RGL AC will only ever issue a ban if we are fully confident in the evidence we gather.