Editing Openai/69434f20-ed90-800d-ab60-60312c9de3dd (section)

=== User: Loctarjay quotes Captain Blue "But you don't have a number for the amount players cheating..." ===
Loctarjay quotes Captain Blue "But you don't have a number for the amount players cheating..."
To which Loctarjay responds:
"I dont need a % of cheaters in a game....
I need a probability of you being right with how often you are calling cheaters🤦

For you to be right even 70% of the time, there needs to be roughly 60% cheaters at all time.......
BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT ENCOUNTERING MORE THAN 2 ENEMIES ON AVERAGE"

Loctarjay quotes Captain Blue "You need to input an amount of cheating... lol"
To which Loctarjay responds: "No i dont🤦

For you to be right 95% of the time:
Sample rate: 20 matches, 2 enemy encounters on average, 19 cheater accusations
Result: AT MINIMUM 50% needs to be cheating
Sample rate: 50 matches, 2 enemy encounters on average, 48 cheater accusations
Result: AT MINIMUM 63% needs to be cheating
Sample rate: 200 matches, 2 enemy encounters on average, 190 cheater accusations
Result: AT MINIMUM 73% needs to be cheating

So the fact that you NEVER admit you are wrong, even when the most basic ingame mechanics can explain the situation...
Well... That only supports the evidence OF YOU BEING A CHEATER DEFENDER AND LYING ABOUT WHAT CHEATING LOOKS LIKE"

Captain Blue quotes Loctarjay: "I dont need a % of cheaters in a game....
I need a probability of you being right with how often you are calling cheaters🤦

For you to be right even 70% of the time, there needs to be roughly 60% cheaters at all time.......
BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT ENCOUNTERING MORE THAN 2 ENEMIES ON AVERAGE"
To which Captain Blue responds:
"But you would need to know how many games I've played and exact numbers of reports. the quality of my evidence. The things that I point to.

Right and the counter argument would be that in 30% cheater prevalence then if I encounter 2 players every game there is 51% that one of them is a cheater.

So if I need 60% to be cheating or 60% of the people I encounter to be cheating then in a 30% cheater population there is 51% chance one of those is a cheater so that percentage checks out doesn't it?

Haven't you just accidentally proven me correct? That in order for me to be correct then around 30% of the player base must be cheating?

"Result: AT MINIMUM 50% needs to be cheating"

50% of what? The game? the player base? out of the people I encounter...?"

Loctarjay quotes Captain Blue "But you would need to know how many games I've played and exact numbers of reports. the quality of my evidence. The things that I point to."
To which Loctarjay responds:
"First and foremost...
No i dont...

What I do need is your match count and ACCUSATIONS...
Why... Super simple
YOU CLAIM TO KNOW WHAT SUBTLE CHEATING LOOKS LIKE

So based on your match-count AND your rate of accusing people of cheating, I can calculate how many cheaters there would need to be, for the likelihood of you being right as oftrn as you claim you are (aka 100% of the time, but giving you 95% as a margin of error)"

Loctarjay quotes Captain Blue ""Result: AT MINIMUM 50% needs to be cheating"

50% of what? The game? the player base? out of the people I encounter...?"
To which Loctarjay responds:
"You really lack reading comprehension🤦

The results are OUT OF THE 19 PLAYERS.....
Because you do NOT encounter all 19, so the cheater-rate must increase accordingly....

And again...
This is the cheater-rate REQUIRED for you to be right as often as you claim cheat and demand you are not wrong"

Captain Blue quotes Loctarjay "First and foremost...
No i dont...

What I do need is your match count and ACCUSATIONS...
Why... Super simple
YOU CLAIM TO KNOW WHAT SUBTLE CHEATING LOOKS LIKE

So based on your match-count AND your rate of accusing people of cheating, I can calculate how many cheaters there would need to be, for the likelihood of you being right as oftrn as you claim you are (aka 100% of the time, but giving you 95% as a margin of error)"
To which Captain Blue responds:
"It doesn't prove that's how many people must be cheating. Other factors that need to be considered

Like ARC being casual and many players want to coop means players will not engage with PvP. There might be many encounters with players in passing that are never seen. Who see me and avoid me or cross paths never knowing we were there. Which might increase the odds that people who engage first are more likely to be cheaters.

You can't know how many people that have been avoided.

You don't have enough information to get any actually usable data on my reporting rate."

Loctarjay quotes Captain Blue "It doesn't prove that's how many people must be cheating."
To which Loctarjay responds: "What it does prove is whether or not you are a pathological liar / someone crying wolf because he cannot accept reality / a cheater defender trying to help hide cheaters in plain sight.......

So what % would you argue that you are right.... Huh...????

I already gave you a 5% margin of error, with a sample rate of 200 matches, 190 cheater accusations and on average 2 encounters....
So if you want to argue you are right 95% of the time, then you are at the same time, claimining there are +73% cheaters in every single match

So what % would you argue you are right in your cheater-accusations??????????"

Loctarjay quotes Captain Blue "Like ARC being casual and many players want to coop means players will not engage with PvP. There might be many encounters with players in passing that are never seen. Who see me and avoid me or cross paths never knowing we were there. Which might increase the odds that people who engage first are more likely to be cheaters.

You can't know how many people that have been avoided.

You don't have enough information to get any actually usable data on my reporting rate."
To which Loctarjay responds: "All these things inly goes to support my argument = YOU CANNOT GIVE AN ESTIMATE OF HOW MANY CHEATERS ARE NEEDED FOR A CHANCE TO HAVE A CHEATER EVERY SINGLE MATCH...
BECAUSE YOU WOULD NOT KNOW, therefore it is impossible to calculate

So what we can do, is calculate the likelihood of you being right and how many cheaters there would need to exists before you are right....
Again....
For you to be right 95% of the time, with a sample rate of 200 matches, 2 encounters on average and 190 cheater accusations.... There NEED to be 73% OR MORE cheaters per match"

Captain Blue quotes Loctarjay "All these things inly goes to support my argument = YOU CANNOT GIVE AN ESTIMATE OF HOW MANY CHEATERS ARE NEEDED FOR A CHANCE TO HAVE A CHEATER EVERY SINGLE MATCH...
BECAUSE YOU WOULD NOT KNOW, therefore it is impossible to calculate

So what we can do, is calculate the likelihood of you being right and how many cheaters there would need to exists before you are right....
Again....
For you to be right 95% of the time, with a sample rate of 200 matches, 2 encounters on average and 190 cheater accusations.... There NEED to be 73% OR MORE cheaters per match"
To which Captain Blue responds: "I entered in your data then asked to factor in casual players trying to avoid conflict and cheaters coordinating in regards to my accusation rate.

• It assume neutral, random encounters; once you factor in PvP avoidance and cheater coordination, the required global cheating rate to match your accusation accuracy is lower.

• With moderate engagement bias (s ≈ 2–3), your samples imply ~42–54% prevalence, not ~69–70%.

• If global is truly ~30%, your accuracy can still be 95% provided cheaters engage you 5–6× more often than legit players (and/or coordinate to avoid fighting each other), which dramatically inflates your encounter prevalence without requiring an extreme global rate.

so the lowest percentage based on these new factors based on my accusations would be 42% cheating. But still says if there was 30% global cheaters I can still have 95% report accuracy rate if I was targeted more."

Loctarjay quotes himself as a reference "So if you want to argue you are right 95% of the time, then you are at the same time, claimining there are +73% cheaters in every single match

So what % would you argue you are right in your cheater-accusations??????????"
To which Loctarjay expands and responds: "I can inform you about this...
The lower you set your accusation-accuracy %, the more questionable your abilities to spot cheaters....

If you set your accuracy to 80%, then you still need +55% of the entire playerbase to be cheaters, with an average encounter of 2 enemies per match"

Captain Blue quotes Loctarjay "I can inform you about this...
The lower you set your accusation-accuracy %, the more questionable your abilities to spot cheaters....

If you set your accuracy to 80%, then you still need +55% of the entire playerbase to be cheaters, with an average encounter of 2 enemies per match"
To which Captain Blue responds: "But you're inputting no information on player behaviour. There are just neutral stats that have no reference to the game at all.

Your data does not represent the reality. Its skewered data as always.

"• If “percentage” means the share of the 19 players in your lobby who are cheaters, then under neutral, random encounters, your 95% correctness with two encounters per match implies roughly 69–70% of the lobby (≈13/19) are cheaters — not 50–63–73%.
• If cheaters disproportionately engage you (PvP avoidance by casuals) or coordinate, the required lobby fraction drops substantially, making your high correctness compatible with a much lower true lobby share.""

Loctarjay quotes Captain Blue "I entered in your data then asked to factor in casual players trying to avoid conflict and cheaters coordinating on my accusation rate."
To which Loctarjay responds:
"Translation: I will add anything I can in order to save myself from needing to admit I am wrong🤡

Sure, then we can ask the AI:
* What is the likelihood, if we account for casual players grouping together in a match, or cheaters grouping together?

Even if the average proportion of cheaters in the player pool is the same, the per-match probability distribution is more skewed. Some matches are “full of cheaters,” some are “empty,” and the probability you die to a cheater can increase or decrease depending on the clustering
* a concrete example with ~95%
(Casual player clusters and cheater clusters)

Calculations
m (enemies per match) q (prob ≥1 cheater) Required p for independent model Notes

q=1−B(2,1+2)/B(2,1)=1−B(2,3)/B(2,1) ~0.95 → p independent ~0.776
(2 average encounters, 95% accusation-accuracy-rate, you NEED +77.6% cheaters per match)

q=1−B(2,1+3)/B(2,1)=1−B(2,4)/B(2,1) ~0.95 → p independent ~0.631
(3 average encounters, 95% accusation-accuracy-rate, you NEED +63.1% cheaters per match)

q=1−B(2,1+4)/B(2,1)=1−B(2,5)/B(2,1) ~0.95 → p independent ~0.527
(4 average encounters, 95% accusation-accuracy-rate, you NEED +52.7% cheaters per match)

I will ask you again... What would you argue your accusation-accuracy is????
I can easily go back through your vods and find the "average encounters" and we can easily calculate the likelihood of you being right"

Loctarjay quotes Captain Blue "But you're inputting no information on player behaviour"
To which Loctarjay responds:
"Player behavior means nothing, because the moment you attempt to add that as a factor you are trying to control human behavior, AND THAT IS ILLOGICAL....🤦

The moment you want to argue "subtle cheats", is the moment cheaters cannot outright just wipe an entire server / speed hack / teleport or such...

And heck... Even if casual players does group up, it does not magically mean cheaters wont try to win the fight🤦
And you have even shown that you will gladly accuse teammates you did not encounter, or even killed, to be cheaters....

So stop being a coward and answer the question.... What would you say your accusation-accuracy-rate is...?????????
The higher you set it, the more cheaters you need BUT the more credible you are ... The lower you set it the less cheaters you need and the less credible you are"

Captain Blue quotes Loctarjay "Translation: I will add anything I can in order to save myself from needing to admit I am wrong🤡

Sure, then we can ask the AI:
* What is the likelihood, if we account for casual players grouping together in a match, or cheaters grouping together?

Even if the average proportion of cheaters in the player pool is the same, the per-match probability distribution is more skewed. Some matches are “full of cheaters,” some are “empty,” and the probability you die to a cheater can increase or decrease depending on the clustering
* a concrete example with ~95%
(Casual player clusters and cheater clusters)

Calculations
m (enemies per match) q (prob ≥1 cheater) Required p for independent model Notes

q=1−B(2,1+2)/B(2,1)=1−B(2,3)/B(2,1) ~0.95 → p independent ~0.776
(2 average encounters, 95% accusation-accuracy-rate, you NEED +77.6% cheaters per match)

q=1−B(2,1+3)/B(2,1)=1−B(2,4)/B(2,1) ~0.95 → p independent ~0.631
(3 average encounters, 95% accusation-accuracy-rate, you NEED +63.1% cheaters per match)

q=1−B(2,1+4)/B(2,1)=1−B(2,5)/B(2,1) ~0.95 → p independent ~0.527
(4 average encounters, 95% accusation-accuracy-rate, you NEED +52.7% cheaters per match)

I will ask you again... What would you argue your accusation-accuracy is????
I can easily go back through your vods and find the "average encounters" and we can easily calculate the likelihood of you being right"
To which Captain Blue respond:
"You've just ignored the counter argument to you claims.

You haven't accounted for player behaviour. When you do the lowest possible rate of the lobby is 42% are cheaters for a 95% accuracy rate based on the 3 additional factors. Casual PvP avoidance, Cheater coordination , targeting me more. 42% to 54%

With a 30% cheater population that means there can be 5 , 6 , 7 cheaters per game roughly about 30% of the lobby. last time I checked 42% is quite close to 30%.

So when you input real factors the numbers start to look like what I claim. So my reports are likely to be accurate. Maybe not 95% accurate but still pretty high.

"Player behavior means nothing, because the moment you attempt to add that as a factor you are trying to control human behavior, AND THAT IS ILLOGICAL....🤦"

But you're saying players have no behaviour which is actually illogical... Projection as always.

I'm inputting known and likely player behaviour."