Quick answer: Log full context (state, inputs, snapshots, hardware) for every detection, route every flag through a human review queue before banning, and retune rules based on the actual overturn rate. A detection system with less than 99% precision is broken.
Your server-side aim-bot detection fires on a pro player. You auto-ban them. Twitter blows up. They post a video proving they’re legitimate. Now you’re refunding bans and losing community trust. The original bug was trusting a rule that fires on 0.1% of innocent players.
Why False Positives Are Inevitable
Any detection rule has two tunable thresholds: aggressive enough to catch cheaters, loose enough to let legitimate edge cases through. Perfect precision and recall don’t coexist. Pro-level aim, macro-equipped peripherals, latency spikes, and hardware overlays all produce signals that look like cheating. Without context, you can’t tell them apart.
Log Context on Every Detection
type CheatFlag struct {
PlayerID string
RuleName string
Severity int
Timestamp time.Time
RecentInputs []Input // last 10 ticks
ServerState Snapshot // positions of all relevant actors
HardwareInfo HardwareFingerprint
NetworkStats NetStats // RTT, loss, jitter
}
A reviewer with this data can tell in 30 seconds whether a 180-degree flick was an aim-bot or a controller swing. Without it, they’re guessing.
The Review Pipeline
Every flag goes into a queue. For low-severity rules, a single reviewer looks at the evidence and either confirms or overturns. For high-severity, require two independent reviewers who don’t see each other’s decisions. Aim for 24-hour turnaround so banned accounts aren’t stuck.
Measuring Precision
Track three outcomes per rule:
- Flagged & confirmed: true positive.
- Flagged & overturned: false positive.
- Not flagged but caught via report: false negative.
Compute precision weekly. Rules below 99% precision get retuned or disabled. Rules below 50% precision are actively harmful and should be off by default.
The Shadow-Ban Alternative
For flags with weak evidence, shadow-ban instead of hard-ban. Route the suspected cheater into matches with other suspected cheaters. If they’re legitimate, the effect on their experience is minimal (matchmaking just takes longer). If they’re cheating, they stop impacting honest players.
Communicating With Banned Players
When a review upholds a ban, tell the player what rule fired and what action triggered it. Vague “cheating detected” emails generate backlash. A specific “you hit 37 headshots in 10 seconds with impossible reaction times” email either ends the discussion or surfaces a legitimate edge case you hadn’t considered.
“Anti-cheat without a review queue is a loaded gun pointed at your community. The queue costs money; the bans you avoid retract cost much more.”
Related Issues
For broader mod detection, see how to detect modded clients in multiplayer games. For handling banned accounts, see how to handle platform banned accounts.
Ban rate is a metric you can tune. Precision is a contract with your community. The second matters more than the first.