Battlefield 5 anti-cheat

13468918

Comments

  • Pelliy
    2228 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    @LOLGotYerTags can a mod rescue my comment.

  • Pelliy
    2228 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    @LOLGotYerTags can a mod rescue my comment.

  • StarscreamUK
    7590 postsMember, Moderator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Moderator
    I rescued it, but its better to message a mod than post, it leaves less clutter
  • Pelliy
    2228 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    I rescued it, but its better to message a mod than post, it leaves less clutter

    Ok thank you. I will do that next time.
  • SpoolaZ
    217 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
    BetaFief wrote: »
    warslag wrote: »
    warslag wrote: »
    As I said before, EA likes FairFight because it uses in-game evidence to prove a player is cheating.

    This removes any embarrassment to EA from a ban issued on the basis of detected client-side cheating which the player could then dispute.

    You can see from this Reddit post that the appeal of FairFight to game developers is the way it avoids 'ambiguous' bans.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/Rainbow6/comments/4476qr/how_fairfight_works_what_it_does_and_what_it/

    "What is FairFight?
    FairFight by GameBlocks is a real time cheat detection and suppression system. FairFight is non-invasive, customizable and engine agnostic. It does not reside on the player's computer and does not examine the players' devices or perpetually look for the latest hacks. FairFight uses our proprietary GameChanger™ rule engine along with advanced database structures to evaluate players' real-time gameplay actions. FairFight combines algorithmic models that assess an array of statistical markers to identify possible cheating, and cross-checks these measurements using objective gameplay reporting to Make it a FairFight™ for everyone.

    How is FairFight different from Punkbuster and Valve Anti-Cheat?
    The most popular anti-cheat programs operate like an antivirus program, searching each players' computer for known strings of hack code. Since these programs scan memory and other components of your customer's computer, they not only raise privacy and security concerns, but they are also constantly 'fighting the last war'.

    FairFight uses a different and, we believe, far better approach. FairFight receives game play data from the game server and focuses on the gameplay itself to determine if a player is cheating."

    The only way you can know if a game's anti-cheat is working is if someone can genuinely prove they are getting away with it. Nobody seems to be doing that so FairFight must be working.

    If you feel the game is full of cheating then it must be that the game itself or your system is at fault.

    I still have more faith in PunkBuster. But that's just me.



    Why do you have more faith in punkbuster? Punkbuster doesn't catch anything. Their last title was Hardline. No developer is seeking out punkbuster anymore.

    I think PunkBuster is more thorough. PunkBuster tries to eradicate cheating completely from a game. I think it takes a more moral stance against cheating than FairFight in that it is designed to take a 'zero tolerance' type approach to cheating.

    This is what FairFight says..

    "In order that highly skilled players are not erroneously flagged as cheats, FairFight uses Server Side Cheat Detection (SSCD) to cross-compare results. FairFight's SSCD monitors the game state in real time, scanning gameplay data of your choice for events and conditions which are not possible (or that are exceedingly improbable) to achieve without the use of hacks. For example, in a given first person shooter it may be impossible for a weapon to kill (or even hit) a player over 200 yards. When FairFight sees this occur it automatically records it as a validation of any anomalous AAPS findings. With the validation event in place, FairFight will take any number of actions that you have selected, and it will do so when you want it to (immediately, after a delay, player join . . . .) FairFight's combined AAPS and SSCD approaches offer the best cheat detection and suppression tool in the industry - and it functions in real-time."


    But what if someone is using cheats to do the 'possible'. Are they detected? Can someone use cheats under FairFight's nose to be as good as it is 'possible' to be? Or to do something that is possible but is still cheating?

    I also wonder about FairFight's ability to catch map-hacks, wall-hacks and ESP. I know FairFight says it catches aim-bots by detecting the way they target more than one player at the same time, but what if someone creates a cheat which seems like normal play to FairFight? Is that possible?

    What I try to do now is to accept that FairFight is working, and that any suspicions I have about a cheat is caused by my PC, the game or the 'netcode', 'lag compensation', servers, 'hit-reg'.

    Having played Battlefield for probably more than 12,000 hours down the years I think I have developed an instinct for when something isn't right in terms of open play.

    At the moment my instincts are triggered all the time but I keep telling myself FairFight's doing a good job, it's just the game etc. But a nagging doubt persists.

    The other thing with FairFight was how in Rainbow Six Siege there was a lot, and I mean a lot, of cheating. Ubisoft then hired BattlEye. Cheating has nevertheless been a persistent problem in R6S and Ubisoft are trying once more to do something about it. Apparently, including legal action.

    I had more faith in PunkBuster when it was allowed to do it's job properly. I say 'do it's job properly' because I think that after some false positives and negative feedback, that PunkBuster was put on a leash some way through BF3.

    PunkBuster was dropped completely for BF1. I think this was due to negative feedback. You don't get that negative feedback with FairFight. That's the real attraction for EA. Maybe EA doesn't care if someone uses a cheat to be really good. Maybe they just want to stop the obvious cheats that do the 'impossible' to head off negative feedback about cheating. With all the problems there has been with servers maybe my instincts about cheating are triggered by technical issues with the game.

    I disagree. The reason punkbuster was dropped because it was ineffective. No other games use FF. Battlefield Hardline was the last game to do it. They don't have a good reputation and hackers have openly bragged on their platforms about compromising punkbuster. They want it to come back just as much as you do.

    I don't believe fairfight is giving the full narrative of what their anticheat can do and I also think developers have to work with anticheat developers to get an effective thing going. I think ff did a better job doing that with ea then say punk buster. I still read comments about how archaic punkbuster's updating was for previous titles. How some people had to manually update the punkbuster client. The punkbuster client is on the computer, not the server and that can easily be compromised as well.

    Your instincts are probably not wrong. There are still cheaters in BF1. Some of them togglers. I just don't think its at a point to where its an epidemic like it is in other titles. You look at all the popular shooters right now, Its probably one of the few with cheating epidemics plaguing their game.

    PUBG, CSGO, COD(PC) would all probably like to get their cheating % as low as battlefield 1.

    Rainbow 6: Siege also uses fairfight though.

    and it seems Fairfight has some pretty major shortcomings IMO: mostly it seems unable to cope well in games where developers allow for mods and Stand-Alone-Dedicated-Servers. This to me seems like a major shortcoming, for all the criticism you might give CS:GO or other games, the ability to use custom/3rd-party-content like maps or skins is a valuable aspect towards a game's community...

    I mean PUBG started from a mod (ARMA 3) and is being built on a somewhat mod-friendly engine (Unreal 4); and though there's been rumors about mod support being dropped, from what I've seen it wouldn't be considered a desirable outcome from the developer's perspective.

    Ultimately what I'm getting at is that there's more to think about when considering an anticheat than just "does it stop cheaters/hackers", there's a "what else does it stop?", "what are the other (unwritten/unclear-costs)".

    That's why I said what I said about game devs and anti cheat devs working closely to solve the issue. I know you can't get rid of cheating and I am not advocating that(even though I wish we could) but it has to come to a point where its not a cheat epidemic.

    We have different views what cheat epidemic means.
    To me it's still "epidemic" when you can run cheats, and not banned, by not over do it.
    To you, it seems to be pure selling arguments, we reduce until it looks good, "not to see it as an epidemic"
    The fact is that you have not reduced any cheating at all with that approach, only taught cheaters how to play "neatly"
  • impulsive_tango
    202 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Just my 2 cents here. In the alpha, EA gathered all kinds of data. Data that included but not limited to, what weapon a player(s) used, where players were at on the map at any given time and what they were doing. These are just a few of the things EA monitored durring every game durring the a;pha. So EA could easily catch cheaters if they really wanted to!
  • Kunstula
    473 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    SpoolaZ wrote: »
    We have different views what cheat epidemic means.
    To me it's still "epidemic" when you can run cheats, and not banned, by not over do it.
    To you, it seems to be pure selling arguments, we reduce until it looks good, "not to see it as an epidemic"
    The fact is that you have not reduced any cheating at all with that approach, only taught cheaters how to play "neatly"

    I could not have said it better.
    I can already imagine the next apologist answer, like: "If cheaters have to play with more caution then cheating is not much of a problem anymore" or something like that.

  • BetaFief
    655 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    SpoolaZ wrote: »
    We have different views what cheat epidemic means.
    To me it's still "epidemic" when you can run cheats, and not banned, by not over do it.
    To you, it seems to be pure selling arguments, we reduce until it looks good, "not to see it as an epidemic"
    The fact is that you have not reduced any cheating at all with that approach, only taught cheaters how to play "neatly"

    I could not have said it better.
    I can already imagine the next apologist answer, like: "If cheaters have to play with more caution then cheating is not much of a problem anymore" or something like that.

    I'd honestly be more willing to "accept" or "tolerate" cheaters/hackers being an issue if it meant that the game/servers were as open to modding as BF1942-2142 were.
    If Modding goes away, however, and server options are more and more locked down with admins being more and more restrained; I would hope the anticheat would be better in proportion.

    Which isn't to say a hypothetical mod-able server would be, or should be, open season for hackers.. merely that I'm more willing to tolerate people slipping by the anticheat if it means that the game and gameplay can be experimented with or have custom content added to it.

    so In a way I do agree with you;

    if there's significant amounts of "sneaky" or "subtle"-hacking/cheating going on, in a game where servers and server-files are tightly controlled, that is unacceptable.
  • disposalist
    9011 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    Micas99 wrote: »
    Saw that spot cheat yesterday. Other team was wonder what was going on, not realizing that one guy was spotting their entire team the entire match until some of us told them. The cheater was 0-1 on top of the leader-board. Not suprising.
    And so fair fight will get him for clearly having an impossible number of spot assists, no?
  • warslag
    1606 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    Micas99 wrote: »
    Saw that spot cheat yesterday. Other team was wonder what was going on, not realizing that one guy was spotting their entire team the entire match until some of us told them. The cheater was 0-1 on top of the leader-board. Not suprising.
    And so fair fight will get him for clearly having an impossible number of spot assists, no?

    I think FairFight looks for something about a player's gameplay that can't be done. Simultaneously targeting lots of players, non-existent cooldowns etc.

    If we were spotting players we could spot a lot of players at once. I get this sometimes when I'm in a plane. It could be a bug that needs fixing that the cheats are exploiting.

    I'm not sure what procedures FairFight follows for that sort of stuff or how long it would take to fix.

    There is absolutely loads of cheating at the moment. In the Operations matches I play there is anyway.
  • MachoFantast1c0
    2066 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    It's not really about the anti-cheat used, but I'd like to see a different approach from EA on this.

    Before I make the points, I'd like to agree with lolgotyatags (as much as it pains me ;)) that BF1 is the cleanest game to date. As someone who has played them all for long hours on multiple systems, I can tell you that BF1 is by far the cleanest streets we've had in BF. However, the anti-cheat in BF1 has some issues, and most of it is to do with EA's policy.

    1) There is insufficient transparency with regards to what actually is allowed and what is not.

    I use Reshade to add more vibrant colour to BF1's completely drab asethetic and slightly sharpen the image so I can use the TAA without feeling like I have Vaseline smeared on my screen. Am I going to get banned because this extra colour / sharpness is maybe a so-called "advantage" by some (ignorant) people? Many players have used a crosshair overlay to replace the crosshair in the game. The game even allows you to make the crosshair (and soon red dot retical on optical sights) invisible, perhaps implying to allow for this purpose, but is this bannable? I personally don't think you should ban for something you can easily also accomplish by physically drawing a dot on the centre of your screen, and wouldn't consider a player I was playing against who was doing it a cheater, but again it's debatable. But again, there is no transparency here from EA either.

    So the message to EA here is, tell us what is OK, and tell us what is not. Be specific - the current EULA is too vague. Saying "all 3rd party apps at your own risk" is a complete cop out - Am I supposed to feel nervous about using the msi afterburner overlay?!

    2) Fairfight makes mistakes.

    It's very easy to put on your tinfoil hat and say that everyone who has been banned is a cheater, but the reality is that within the community of verified high level players of which I have talked to most of them in the EU scene on various discords etc, there are multiple instances of people being false positive'd. With a stat based system, this is always going to be an issue, especially while the game is in it's infancy and the true scope of what is achievable legitimately is yet to be defined by the FF rule set for the specific game. This is more of a problem than it should be, because EA's appeal system is frankly completely broken and doesn't allow for genuine false positives to be overturned. The few I know of that have been rescinded are where people literally had to tweet at devs to get it overturned, when all they got from the official EA channel was auto-responses. This is frankly not good enough. If you are banned for cheating with a stat based system, there needs to be an open dialogue about what you were banned for and the opportunity for you to "prove" otherwise. It's like having a trial where you go to court and the judge just says "guilty" without you even hearing any evidence of a crime yourself or having a chance proof otherwise. Exactly, completely ridiculous.

    3) Fairfight instils no confidence in either good players or bad players.

    Ignoring the obvious rage cheaters of people flying in the sky, or doing 100 damage with a pistol across the map....It's only really easy to tell a good player or a closet cheater when you get to a high level yourself. It's frankly impossible until you have played at that level, that's just the reality. It's about how players move, flank, communicate, understand the game dynamic of each game mode etc. Most of the hackusations in this game come from people who just see a high score and experience someone killing them "instantly", and immediately cry hacks and report. Well, guess what, I played the BFV alpha against Rela and his score was freaking insane, he killed me 4 times in this round, and it all instances it felt like insta-kill, and like he shot me from out of nowhere, exactly the sort of experience that a earlier, less informed version of myself would have just cried cheater and reported him. Of course. this was completely legit and he was even playing at a DICE computer in Stockholm at the time.

    Basically, because below average players don't trust Fairfight due to it not having client-side elements, it makes people more on edge and paranoid. This makes below average players more inclined to believe everyone better than them is simply a cheater. This is not their fault, it's human nature.

    For good players, the lack of a client-side element that would verifiy a cheat or not actually being there, instils no confidence that they are not, for whatever reason that is never disclosed, going to get unfairly banned.



    So to sum up.... yes, Fairfight has "worked" in BF1 better than any other system we've had, They've improved it overtime certainly, but I still don't like it right now. I think with an improvement with EA's policy, removal of things like the free trial which are obvious cheater exploits, better transparency for players and also a less lenient punishment system for 100% confirmed cheaters, things can get a lot better without needing a completely new system.

    I concur with this and give a fitting anecdote.

    Later yesterday on the same RSP server where we both got hackusated, joined a rank 80ish player that did particularly well and taunted others. His performance was no better than mine, but how he played made me suspicious enough to check his stats midgame. Nothing there that would be out of line for great players, expect that he had significant discrepancies weapon-wise, going from a 1KPM player to a 3KPM player in a short period of time. Three games later he was banned live. This was not a trial account, and most likely not a free public cheat.

    So FairFight is effective to a degree, but it's not reliable enough to instill confidence in the playerbase. Most of the extraordinarily well performing suspicious players that I've tracked have seized playing, but a few are still active. Perhaps they are legit, perhaps not. However they are so few (in EU) that I leave servers due to avoiding them maybe once a month. Not a problem for me in practice.
  • TheNoobPolice
    1670 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    I concur with this and give a fitting anecdote.

    Later yesterday on the same RSP server where we both got hackusated, joined a rank 80ish player that did particularly well and taunted others. His performance was no better than mine, but how he played made me suspicious enough to check his stats midgame. Nothing there that would be out of line for great players, expect that he had significant discrepancies weapon-wise, going from a 1KPM player to a 3KPM player in a short period of time. Three games later he was banned live. This was not a trial account, and most likely not a free public cheat.

    So FairFight is effective to a degree, but it's not reliable enough to instill confidence in the playerbase. Most of the extraordinarily well performing suspicious players that I've tracked have seized playing, but a few are still active. Perhaps they are legit, perhaps not. However they are so few (in EU) that I leave servers due to avoiding them maybe once a month. Not a problem for me in practice.

    Yes agreed, stat discrepancy red-flags are very important and is something you can only gain insight of from having many hours experience in the game. I had a player a while ago that I knew was cheating simply by watching how he moved in the kill cam compared to how he was killing everyone. He just moved like a terrible player, and he played medic for a bit, and was doing that thing where they cycle through inventory for 5 seconds trying to figure out where the syringe is while stood over a body etc.

    I decided to spectate him just for fun, and sure enough it was totally obvious, bordering on rage cheating to me. I checked his weapon stats and his most used weapon with just 23% accuracy was the SMLE MK3 and 0.2 KPM, but with the gun he was using in the server, the ROSS MK3, he had 75% accuracy and 7.5 KPM(!) and by the end of the round had double the kills after just one play session. There were many other similar discrepancies, but clearly the difference in ability with just those two practically identical weapons is irreconcilable with a "clean" reality.

    The most interesting thing though, was while I was spectating I was explaining to the players in the chat (as was amazed people weren't leaving the server), about the KPM and accuracy differences etc, and how they don't think that's suspicious someone can go from being in the bottom 1% of players ability, to the top 0.000001% overnight....and people were clueless, saying things like "well, maybe he just likes that gun more" etc.

    This is why reporting is completely pointless for EA to use, and why I never even both doing it. A working anti-cheat doesn't need or warrant a reporting function at all as far as I'm concerned. They will get as many more reports of non-cheaters as actual cheaters, so how is that useful?
  • Pelliy
    2228 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    SpoolaZ wrote: »
    BetaFief wrote: »
    warslag wrote: »
    warslag wrote: »
    As I said before, EA likes FairFight because it uses in-game evidence to prove a player is cheating.

    This removes any embarrassment to EA from a ban issued on the basis of detected client-side cheating which the player could then dispute.

    You can see from this Reddit post that the appeal of FairFight to game developers is the way it avoids 'ambiguous' bans.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/Rainbow6/comments/4476qr/how_fairfight_works_what_it_does_and_what_it/

    "What is FairFight?
    FairFight by GameBlocks is a real time cheat detection and suppression system. FairFight is non-invasive, customizable and engine agnostic. It does not reside on the player's computer and does not examine the players' devices or perpetually look for the latest hacks. FairFight uses our proprietary GameChanger™ rule engine along with advanced database structures to evaluate players' real-time gameplay actions. FairFight combines algorithmic models that assess an array of statistical markers to identify possible cheating, and cross-checks these measurements using objective gameplay reporting to Make it a FairFight™ for everyone.

    How is FairFight different from Punkbuster and Valve Anti-Cheat?
    The most popular anti-cheat programs operate like an antivirus program, searching each players' computer for known strings of hack code. Since these programs scan memory and other components of your customer's computer, they not only raise privacy and security concerns, but they are also constantly 'fighting the last war'.

    FairFight uses a different and, we believe, far better approach. FairFight receives game play data from the game server and focuses on the gameplay itself to determine if a player is cheating."

    The only way you can know if a game's anti-cheat is working is if someone can genuinely prove they are getting away with it. Nobody seems to be doing that so FairFight must be working.

    If you feel the game is full of cheating then it must be that the game itself or your system is at fault.

    I still have more faith in PunkBuster. But that's just me.



    Why do you have more faith in punkbuster? Punkbuster doesn't catch anything. Their last title was Hardline. No developer is seeking out punkbuster anymore.

    I think PunkBuster is more thorough. PunkBuster tries to eradicate cheating completely from a game. I think it takes a more moral stance against cheating than FairFight in that it is designed to take a 'zero tolerance' type approach to cheating.

    This is what FairFight says..

    "In order that highly skilled players are not erroneously flagged as cheats, FairFight uses Server Side Cheat Detection (SSCD) to cross-compare results. FairFight's SSCD monitors the game state in real time, scanning gameplay data of your choice for events and conditions which are not possible (or that are exceedingly improbable) to achieve without the use of hacks. For example, in a given first person shooter it may be impossible for a weapon to kill (or even hit) a player over 200 yards. When FairFight sees this occur it automatically records it as a validation of any anomalous AAPS findings. With the validation event in place, FairFight will take any number of actions that you have selected, and it will do so when you want it to (immediately, after a delay, player join . . . .) FairFight's combined AAPS and SSCD approaches offer the best cheat detection and suppression tool in the industry - and it functions in real-time."


    But what if someone is using cheats to do the 'possible'. Are they detected? Can someone use cheats under FairFight's nose to be as good as it is 'possible' to be? Or to do something that is possible but is still cheating?

    I also wonder about FairFight's ability to catch map-hacks, wall-hacks and ESP. I know FairFight says it catches aim-bots by detecting the way they target more than one player at the same time, but what if someone creates a cheat which seems like normal play to FairFight? Is that possible?

    What I try to do now is to accept that FairFight is working, and that any suspicions I have about a cheat is caused by my PC, the game or the 'netcode', 'lag compensation', servers, 'hit-reg'.

    Having played Battlefield for probably more than 12,000 hours down the years I think I have developed an instinct for when something isn't right in terms of open play.

    At the moment my instincts are triggered all the time but I keep telling myself FairFight's doing a good job, it's just the game etc. But a nagging doubt persists.

    The other thing with FairFight was how in Rainbow Six Siege there was a lot, and I mean a lot, of cheating. Ubisoft then hired BattlEye. Cheating has nevertheless been a persistent problem in R6S and Ubisoft are trying once more to do something about it. Apparently, including legal action.

    I had more faith in PunkBuster when it was allowed to do it's job properly. I say 'do it's job properly' because I think that after some false positives and negative feedback, that PunkBuster was put on a leash some way through BF3.

    PunkBuster was dropped completely for BF1. I think this was due to negative feedback. You don't get that negative feedback with FairFight. That's the real attraction for EA. Maybe EA doesn't care if someone uses a cheat to be really good. Maybe they just want to stop the obvious cheats that do the 'impossible' to head off negative feedback about cheating. With all the problems there has been with servers maybe my instincts about cheating are triggered by technical issues with the game.

    I disagree. The reason punkbuster was dropped because it was ineffective. No other games use FF. Battlefield Hardline was the last game to do it. They don't have a good reputation and hackers have openly bragged on their platforms about compromising punkbuster. They want it to come back just as much as you do.

    I don't believe fairfight is giving the full narrative of what their anticheat can do and I also think developers have to work with anticheat developers to get an effective thing going. I think ff did a better job doing that with ea then say punk buster. I still read comments about how archaic punkbuster's updating was for previous titles. How some people had to manually update the punkbuster client. The punkbuster client is on the computer, not the server and that can easily be compromised as well.

    Your instincts are probably not wrong. There are still cheaters in BF1. Some of them togglers. I just don't think its at a point to where its an epidemic like it is in other titles. You look at all the popular shooters right now, Its probably one of the few with cheating epidemics plaguing their game.

    PUBG, CSGO, COD(PC) would all probably like to get their cheating % as low as battlefield 1.

    Rainbow 6: Siege also uses fairfight though.

    and it seems Fairfight has some pretty major shortcomings IMO: mostly it seems unable to cope well in games where developers allow for mods and Stand-Alone-Dedicated-Servers. This to me seems like a major shortcoming, for all the criticism you might give CS:GO or other games, the ability to use custom/3rd-party-content like maps or skins is a valuable aspect towards a game's community...

    I mean PUBG started from a mod (ARMA 3) and is being built on a somewhat mod-friendly engine (Unreal 4); and though there's been rumors about mod support being dropped, from what I've seen it wouldn't be considered a desirable outcome from the developer's perspective.

    Ultimately what I'm getting at is that there's more to think about when considering an anticheat than just "does it stop cheaters/hackers", there's a "what else does it stop?", "what are the other (unwritten/unclear-costs)".

    That's why I said what I said about game devs and anti cheat devs working closely to solve the issue. I know you can't get rid of cheating and I am not advocating that(even though I wish we could) but it has to come to a point where its not a cheat epidemic.

    We have different views what cheat epidemic means.
    To me it's still "epidemic" when you can run cheats, and not banned, by not over do it.
    To you, it seems to be pure selling arguments, we reduce until it looks good, "not to see it as an epidemic"
    The fact is that you have not reduced any cheating at all with that approach, only taught cheaters how to play "neatly"

    That's your opinion and I have mine. Agree to disagree.
  • 0ld_yell0w
    420 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    @TheNoobPolice well the report function does more than report cheats but I agree on most you written. Its as Ive stated earlier a matter of communication towards the community as well as a working AC ingame. Simple proof that FF doesnt work is the amount of cheaters being banned by 3.party AC in BF4 and also 3. those players cheating isnt caught by FF and they can keep playing on official servers because only PB and FF works there. Lots of other games using FF posts banlists with all info, but not DICE/EA ? why ? If it comes to not hurting a cheaters feelings ...
  • SpoolaZ
    217 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
    All cheaters are bad at the beginning, but they learn to play according to current rules. There should be many examples of it in the e-sport, and it's not rage-hacking idiots we talking about that come so far, its people who learned to master the art of cheating.
    There Fairfight falls completely. Maybe Fairfight catch someone who goes rage sometimes, but that can a community made plugin also do, but much faster.

    SpoolaZ wrote: »
    Clearly that matters, you can pay where you end up in these leaderboards.
    Can you call it an effective anti-cheat, where cheaters can pay for their highscore in leaderboards?

    What's your point man? Do you have a solution?

    I actually have a solution, add Battleye as a complement to Fairfight, it works reasonably.
    Do not argue that games with Battleye have cheating epedemy, how is it in the BF series then that lacks BE and only has FF?
    And why have not these "big" other games companies sent a request to Fairfight if it works so well and can reduce cheating to "acceptable" level?
  • bpapao
    22 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
    edited July 2018
    BF5 cheats are already out! cancel your preorder now

    [link + all caps removed]
    Post edited by LOLGotYerTags on
  • LOLGotYerTags
    14777 postsMember, Moderator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Moderator
    bpapao wrote: »
    BF5 cheats are already out! cancel your preorder now

    Er, What does it matter?

    It's an Alpha, There has never been an active anticheat for Alpha's / Beta's, At least not in any of Battlefields Alpha/Beta tests.

  • VBALL_MVP
    6177 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    bpapao wrote: »
    BF5 cheats are already out! cancel your preorder now

    [link + all caps removed]

    Sounds like someone got killed one too many times.
  • LOLGotYerTags
    14777 postsMember, Moderator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Moderator
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    bpapao wrote: »
    BF5 cheats are already out! cancel your preorder now

    [link + all caps removed]

    Sounds like someone got killed one too many times.

    No there were genuinely cheats out there for the Alpha but.. Like I said..

    It's an Alpha, It wouldn't have made much ( if any ) difference, Plus there wasn't an active AC in the Alpha so...
Sign In or Register to comment.