Playmos Anti-Cheat
Try it first
Trace a result to its evidence#
You need A supported validation model and a recorded test run.
- Inspect the accepted run inputs and authoritative result.
- Compare a valid run with an intentionally invalid input or result.
- Review the rejection evidence before enabling competitive rewards.
Check your result The invalid attempt cannot write a trusted score or grant a reward.
Keep the competition about skill. Playmos Anti-Cheat helps game teams check scores, spot suspicious play and give legitimate players a fair shot.
It combines gameplay checks with smart review to help you understand what happened in a run before deciding what to do next.
Early access. The SDK tools are built, with hosted game integration still in progress. Protection needs to be connected to each game; it is not automatically active across Playmos today.
Protect the run. Respect the player.#
A great score should be celebrated. A made-up score should never win. Playmos Anti-Cheat helps tell the difference by checking the gameplay behind a result, rather than taking the submitted score at face value.
- Check the score. Replay supported gameplay against the game's rules to catch results that do not add up.
- Catch altered runs. Flag conflicting submissions, reused run evidence and unexpected changes to the game version.
- Spot suspicious patterns. Look for repeated replays, unusual timing and bursts of attempts that deserve a closer look.
- Keep decisions grounded. Give reviewers evidence and context instead of turning every unusual result into an accusation.
What can it spot?#
| Pattern | What it tells your team |
|---|---|
| A score that does not match the gameplay | The result needs to be checked before it can count. |
| The same replay used by different players | There may be copied runs or coordinated automation. |
| Unusually regular inputs | The run may deserve a closer look alongside other evidence. |
| A rapid burst of attempts | Check for automation, retries or an issue with the game. |
| An exceptional score or perfect streak | Compare the run with the game's rules and other verified results. |
| Verification delays or service problems | Investigate the system and keep the player informed. |
A pattern is a reason to investigate, not a verdict. Skilled players, accessibility tools and connection problems all deserve context.
Smarter reviews, fairer decisions#
Optional AI-assisted review helps make suspicious patterns easier to understand. It can suggest watching a run, asking a person to review it or gathering more evidence.
It does not ban players, change scores or decide payouts. Your team stays in charge of the decision.
Reviews use a limited summary of gameplay signals. Player names, wallets, emails, IP addresses and credentials are not sent to the AI reviewer. Routine runs are filtered first, and repeat reviews are limited to help keep costs predictable.
How should your team respond?#
Start with the run and the evidence. Separate a result that fails the game rules from a player who simply performs unusually well.
- A result fails verification: keep it out of competitive scoring through your game's integration.
- A run looks suspicious: review the evidence before taking action against the player.
- Verification is unavailable: show a pending result and investigate the service issue; do not punish the player.
- Repeated abuse is confirmed: apply your published competition policy, explain the decision and give the player a way to appeal.
Account restrictions and appeals need your own policy and implementation today. Automated bans and fund confiscation are not part of Playmos Anti-Cheat.
Built for your game#
Your game sets the rules. Playmos Anti-Cheat gives your developers tools to record a run, check the result and review suspicious activity on your backend.
Replay checks work with games that can reproduce gameplay reliably. Valid gameplay alone cannot prove that a human played it, so automation needs additional evidence and review.
Shared verification tools are available for approved validators. Player devices do not currently provide shared security for the game pool.
Getting started#
Choose the competition you want to protect, define what makes a valid run and have your developers connect verification before a result reaches the leaderboard.
The first rollout should focus on collecting evidence and reviewing outcomes. Make sure legitimate players can understand delays and disputed results before introducing restrictions.
Available with a connected backend: the Publisher Anti-Cheat console, case evidence, player history and recorded review decisions. Replay checks, run integrity checks, approved-validator verification and optional anomaly review are available in SDK source. Package publication and hosted score-verification integration are still pending. Platform restriction controls and appeals are planned.
Ready to connect your game? The developer setup and reference covers installation, gameplay recording and backend integration.
If it did not work#
If your simulation lacks an approved adapter, use practice rather than accepting browser scores as authoritative.
Try one variation Replay the same accepted result in an isolated test. It must not create an extra competitive reward.
Continue with the next guide →