"'I'm NOT related or employed by Bluehole, So don't expect me can send the suggestion to them."

Well, recent days when playing PUBG (player unknown battleground) there are a lot of hackers and really ruined my game experience. What do you think can help stop those hackers (on programming level)

Because the shooting games like PUBG can't afford to do all the calculations on server side. Many data are processed on client side, which is easy to get hacked by trainers. But as i said, a shooting game has so many calculations needs to be done, expecting server to do that is just impossible. Now Bluehole starts to ban all player killed 15 or more in one game, which does catch lots of hackers, but also some innocent players get banned. Can you think some strategy to prevent, or at least, detect the hackers on server side?

I got an idea is to randomly choose some game, and use server to do the calculation at same time as the client side, and if the output is different, then the client is very likely to be a hacker.

1 hour ago, Cold.bo said:

But as i said, a shooting game has so many calculations needs to be done, expecting server to do that is just impossible

Why? Dedicated authoritative servers is the standard solution for first person shooting games. They should just use dedicated authoritative servers... It's not like they don't have the money

Alternatively, if you make all the game logic deterministic, so you can replay use the inputs and recreate the same results, then you can force every player to record and share a replay/recording of their match. You can either have a server farm check the replays to see if they're legit (and match up with replays from other players in that match) or pass them to other clients for verification. There's lots of issues around hackers that work together to verify each other, or falsely report non-hackers as failing verification, but several thesis have been published on solving those issues and creating deterministic, distributed, cryptographically secure peer verified simulations... You can also just have your servers randomly check some replays and not others, or only audit players who win too much... 

7 hours ago, Hodgman said:

Why? Dedicated authoritative servers is the standard solution for first person shooting games. They should just use dedicated authoritative servers... It's not like they don't have the money

Alternatively, if you make all the game logic deterministic, so you can replay use the inputs and recreate the same results, then you can force every player to record and share a replay/recording of their match. You can either have a server farm check the replays to see if they're legit (and match up with replays from other players in that match) or pass them to other clients for verification. There's lots of issues around hackers that work together to verify each other, or falsely report non-hackers as failing verification, but several thesis have been published on solving those issues and creating deterministic, distributed, cryptographically secure peer verified simulations... You can also just have your servers randomly check some replays and not others, or only audit players who win too much... 

That's how Starcraft do. But for shooting game, it just cant be. Have you ever considered how many player will shoot at same time in PUBG, and if all these calculation for ballistic goes to server side, what will happen to their server which already lagging ?

And by making deterministic. It won't work for the hackers using simulated hardware hack. (like do auto-aiming, not simply use the aim result, but make a simulated mouse movement to move the aiming point). 

4 hours ago, Cold.bo said:

But for shooting game, it just cant be. Have you ever considered how many player will shoot at same time in PUBG, and if all these calculation for ballistic goes to server side, what will happen to their server which already lagging ?

Why can't it be? What are you basing that on? It sounds like you're just repeating things that you've heard rather than basing this on development experience? 

It's currently lagging because they don't have a dedicated server, so you're relying on other players on vastly different connections to share game-state instead of having a single reliable connection to a data centre. 

If 100 players all simultaneously fire a 600RPM rifle at a target that's 3km away, then after three seconds there will be 3000 projectiles in the air. If the server ticks at 20Hz it needs a ray-tracer capable of 60K rays/s, which isn't much - it would only consume a tiny fraction of the server's CPU budget. If every bullet needs to be seen by every client (e.g. To draw tracers) then this would cause a burst of about 72kbit/s in bandwidth, which is fine for anyone on DSL, and a 7mbit/s burst on the server, which is fine for a machine in a gigabit data centre. None of this impacts latency because that's not how that works... And if not every bullet has visible tracers then these numbers go down drastically. 

[edit] I quickly googled and apparently PUBG does already run on dedicated servers in data centres? Maybe they still do client side hit detection for some reason though...