I hate to admit it but there are cheaters in this game currently

Comments

  • SquaddFather
    96 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    I’ve said this dozens of times in this forum EA has the best of both worlds with its players , the don’t want to stop cheating because it’s money in their pocket , a person gets banned they just buy the game again, just think of this if 20% of the players cheat hack that’s probably ends up being a 15% gain in income for EA , and what this also does it boost the amount of copies sold which in turn helps sell more copies in boosting their rating on sold copies !
  • P90Zeta
    3 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited April 16
    Ok, I've received a double warning for posting a cheater name.
    I'm sorry and my apologies for that.

    Btw, how can I properly report a cheater if I can't upload allegation on Origin report system?
    Cheaters can buy game keys paying just a little amount of money, they're not customers, and they don't bring any profit to the EA/DICE.Actually they're damaging your business.
    I'm a customer who pay and play since
    BF2.
    But my sensation is that you don't give the proper attention to this big problem.

    Sorry for bad English.

  • Mephisto_POA
    100 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited April 16
    it is getting impossible to play, every single round some *violation removed* with aimbot that can see you from anywhere in the map.

    every *violation removed* round!
    Post edited by StarscreamUK on
  • Micas99
    812 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    My post got binned, if a mod could free it please.
  • Micas99
    812 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Micas99 said:
    bran1986 said:
    Fairfight tends to work in 'ban waves" when they occur no one knows since DICE no longer has ban messages in the chat. You can report a player and they might not be banned for a month or longer, whenever the next ban wave happens.
    What leads you to think that Fairfight is active in BF5? I've been hearing about this mythical "ban wave" thing for months now. 
    So cheaters are complaining about FairFight bans in BFV on hack user forums just for laughs, none of them has really been banned? FairFight might have become obsolete in the same way PunkBuster did, or EA might even have told FF to keep the number of bans down (I wouldn't put that past them). But given that someone posted a screenshot of a FF ban notice here awhile back it does seem that FF is being used in BFV however ineffectively. As the aphorism goes, don't ascribe to malice that which might be simple incompetence.
    My question was sincere. I was asking how anyone knows that FF is actually used in BF5. Apparently cheaters are getting told the ban was triggered by FF, so that would seem to confirm it is active. So now we can ask why it's not an effective anti-cheat. FF is highly capable of collecting statistics, but it is in the interpretation of those statistics that may be the problem. Some of the statistical thresholds may have been changed by Dice in an effort to avoid a false positive, which then makes the statistic less likely to catch a cheater. Given that there are probably hundreds of metrics used by FF, I wonder which Dice have altered to make it less likely to issue a ban in error, thus allowing more room for cheaters to not get caught.

    That's the thing I don't think many people know about FF. They design the thresholds, but the client, in this case Dice, decides whether or not they want to use them. I think that's why you can see that FF is active in BF4, but insane head-shot kill ratios with ARs (for example) are not triggering a ban. 

    Ultimately, the anti-cheat is still very poor, however it is configured. I remember the days where patches would land and you'd get a day or two of relatively clean games while the cheat providers adjusted their cheats. Then it was back to the same routine. Were I a dev at Dice, that would get me thinking. What did we change that forced the cheat provider to change their cheat? Why not do that daily.. small patch every day? Might work.
  • TFBisquit
    1031 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    The thing I have an issue with, is not FF , but the fact a player can modify the game mechanics to get an advantage over other legit players. Why is it possible to adjust aim assist to a 1hk, everyone spotted, wallhacking etc.
    If a game can't even prevent one to go beyond the boundaries set...
  • StarscreamUK
    7058 postsMember, Moderator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Moderator
    TFBisquit said:
    The thing I have an issue with, is not FF , but the fact a player can modify the game mechanics to get an advantage over other legit players. Why is it possible to adjust aim assist to a 1hk, everyone spotted, wallhacking etc.
    If a game can't even prevent one to go beyond the boundaries set...
    Thats the nature of PC gaming, people can run anything, sadly hacks exist for all titles, some are not as public as others, but they are there.  Even free games get subscription hacks, I mean, who would pay to cheat in a free game, thats got to be an indicator of low self esteem
  • parkingbrake
    3012 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    TFBisquit said:
    The thing I have an issue with, is not FF , but the fact a player can modify the game mechanics to get an advantage over other legit players. Why is it possible to adjust aim assist to a 1hk, everyone spotted, wallhacking etc.
    If a game can't even prevent one to go beyond the boundaries set...

    Hacks are injected after a game launches and take advantage of the fact that much of a game's operation happens client-side, in effect the hack peeks at data the player should not have (e.g. the location of opponents) and provides that info to the player. If the client didn't have that info then things like wall hacks would not be possible, but that would mean fast-action games like BFV could not run as fast as they do and the load on the servers would be massively greater. Modifying game files to increase damage per shot or whatever also happens and you would think that would be relatively easy to detect, but that would require live monitoring of a client to see if something suspicious is happening in-game. Supposedly EA was working on such a capability but it's hard to believe it's operational based on what we see in games. This problem isn't unique to BFV, the worst cheating I've ever seen was in PUBG, and that game has three anti-cheat systems in operation and has banned an astonishing thirteen million accounts, a quarter of all they've sold. So long as game publishers make little or no effort to keep banned players from buying the game again none of this will change. It's even reasonable to think they're okay with banned players buying another copy, a sale is a sale, so why make potential repeat customers identify themselves in way that could prevent them from re-buying a game? As characters in mafia shows always says, "It's just business".
  • Micas99
    812 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Hacks are injected after a game launches and take advantage of the fact that much of a game's operation happens client-side, in effect the hack peeks at data the player should not have (e.g. the location of opponents) and provides that info to the player. If the client didn't have that info then things like wall hacks would not be possible, but that would mean fast-action games like BFV could not run as fast as they do and the load on the servers would be massively greater.

    So that's what I was referring to with the issue of patches stopping the cheats until the provider reconfigures them to be able to leverage that data you mention. Why not do it often? I'm sure everything I could think of as a method to stop cheats has already been considered by Dice, but why not change those memory locations every day, or every few days via a very small patch? Bandwidth cost? Hassle to the player getting a game update daily? The cost of building and deploying a patch? Valid reasons I suppose. Encrypt the data? I'm sure Dice have probably looked at the possibilities, but their performance is terrible. They lack the talented engineers needed to solve the problem? I think it's more likely that they lack the desire to fix the problem.

    Given that.. my beef is with the results. I do software engineering in the medical field, and the DBs/software cannot have tiny holes in it, much less gaping chasms. Of course our stuff is not perfect, but imperfections in security cause 5 alarm fire-drills and that stuff gets sorted out immediately. There is no way I could function as a dev at Dice because I would lose my mind and get fired on the spot. Clearly patient safety and video game security are not in the same universe, but it makes no sense from any perspective to develop and release a competitive game that does not prevent intrusive hacks. I get that something like mouse macros or driver exploits might be difficult, but to not be able to defeat ESP and bots in your game? That's straight up pathetic.

    The frostbite engine looks to be what all the EA studios will be using for games, from FIFA to Dragon Age, Anthem, BF, etc. Doesn't it then make sense for EA to put up the money to solve the problem? We ask these questions and we get no answer from EA or Dice other than they have some sort of effort underway I guess. Maybe the answer from Dice is that there will be cheaters until they deploy whatever their solution is. The question, then, is how long is that going to take?
  • parkingbrake
    3012 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Micas99 said:
    Micas99 said:
    bran1986 said:
    Fairfight tends to work in 'ban waves" when they occur no one knows since DICE no longer has ban messages in the chat. You can report a player and they might not be banned for a month or longer, whenever the next ban wave happens.
    What leads you to think that Fairfight is active in BF5? I've been hearing about this mythical "ban wave" thing for months now. 
    So cheaters are complaining about FairFight bans in BFV on hack user forums just for laughs, none of them has really been banned? FairFight might have become obsolete in the same way PunkBuster did, or EA might even have told FF to keep the number of bans down (I wouldn't put that past them). But given that someone posted a screenshot of a FF ban notice here awhile back it does seem that FF is being used in BFV however ineffectively. As the aphorism goes, don't ascribe to malice that which might be simple incompetence.
    My question was sincere. I was asking how anyone knows that FF is actually used in BF5. Apparently cheaters are getting told the ban was triggered by FF, so that would seem to confirm it is active. So now we can ask why it's not an effective anti-cheat. FF is highly capable of collecting statistics, but it is in the interpretation of those statistics that may be the problem. Some of the statistical thresholds may have been changed by Dice in an effort to avoid a false positive, which then makes the statistic less likely to catch a cheater. Given that there are probably hundreds of metrics used by FF, I wonder which Dice have altered to make it less likely to issue a ban in error, thus allowing more room for cheaters to not get caught.

    That's the thing I don't think many people know about FF. They design the thresholds, but the client, in this case Dice, decides whether or not they want to use them. I think that's why you can see that FF is active in BF4, but insane head-shot kill ratios with ARs (for example) are not triggering a ban. 

    Ultimately, the anti-cheat is still very poor, however it is configured. I remember the days where patches would land and you'd get a day or two of relatively clean games while the cheat providers adjusted their cheats. Then it was back to the same routine. Were I a dev at Dice, that would get me thinking. What did we change that forced the cheat provider to change their cheat? Why not do that daily.. small patch every day? Might work.

    My understanding (based on what we were told when FF first appeared) is that FF is a two-stage system. First, it either flags a player with unusual stats or who has received multiple cheat reports. Second, FF then uses active monitoring of that player in-game, and if he does something to confirm the suspicion (I assume something impossible without using a hack), he's banned right then and there. Or at least that's what I recall from when FF was first used in BF4, and dang did it work, we were getting cheaters banned by the busload in a few days, it was great (and the hack user forums went nuts). One guy I used to play with took a FF ban (actually a one-week suspension) and he was booted right in the middle of a game, so that is partial confirmation of what we were told. Turned out he had used a hack out of frustration though it took awhile for him to admit that to his friends who had assumed it was a false positive ban.

    So the question is why does FF seem to be working so poorly now? Hack creators have modified their products to make detection more difficult, e.g. aimbots can now be set up to miss some shots and avoid headshot kills so stats like accuracy and headshots look more normal. Beyond that I have to wonder if EA has told FF to take it easy because BFV sold a million fewer copies than they were hoping they're okay with cheaters sticking around for awhile just to help keep the servers populated. But lets also acknowledge that other games with multiple anti-cheat systems don't seem to do any better--Fortnite uses EAC and BattleEye but you can go to their forums and see players insisting that game has no anti-cheat at all because the game is infested with hack users (sound familiar?). PUBG has three anti-cheats including BattleEye, yet it also has the worst cheating I've ever seen in any game, and has suffered massive performance issues due to how a couple of those anti-cheats hog resources. But at least they're more public about what they're doing, including sending ban confirmation messages to players who report cheaters--quite refreshing in comparison to EA. I think EA just doesn't care, the PC platform is no longer important to them so they're doing the bare minimum. I wouldn't be surprised if they don't even bother to release BF6 for PC.
  • 0412388767
    28 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    @AvocadoPablo
    Why not?

    Because the rules say so.

    The rules say no cheating/hacking in game can you please try and enforce that rule.....
  • CaptHotah
    1026 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    0412388767 wrote: »
    LOLGotYerTags said:
    @AvocadoPablo
    Why not?

    Because the rules say so.



    The rules say no cheating/hacking in game can you please try and enforce that rule.....

    Its easier to ban legit players
  • TNA_SneakyMonkey
    538 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited April 17
    The mods are transparent in their applications of the rules, in my experience, and given that there's no money involved in forum participation (and there's no win condition on the forum, which obviates the use of cheats), it's much easier to moderate.

    With a game, the publisher has entered into a legal agreement to provide access to the software. Removal of that access therefore brings a much higher burden of evidence.

    On top of that, the forum is not the game, and the mods are not EA employees. It's a lot easier to earn yourself disciplinary measures in a forum than it is than it is in a game.

  • EdwinSpangler
    1758 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    TFBisquit said:
    The thing I have an issue with, is not FF , but the fact a player can modify the game mechanics to get an advantage over other legit players. Why is it possible to adjust aim assist to a 1hk, everyone spotted, wallhacking etc.
    If a game can't even prevent one to go beyond the boundaries set...
    Thats the nature of PC gaming, people can run anything, sadly hacks exist for all titles, some are not as public as others, but they are there.  Even free games get subscription hacks, I mean, who would pay to cheat in a free game, thats got to be an indicator of low self esteem
    Ever hear of a game called AVA? Was a f2p game absolutely infested with hacks.. Aside from the free cheats there were 3-4 sites where you could pay 15-20 dollars a month to subscribe to their "undetected" "always up to date" hacks.. Mind boggling to say the least, yes.
  • TNA_SneakyMonkey
    538 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited April 17
    OK, so the latest cheat tonight... the Origin ID/gamertag changed right at the end of the round. .

    Kind of difficult to report that. I have video evidence, but can't add it to a report as obviously the Origin ID has changed.
  • FierceBrosnan007
    975 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Sure why would they need a working anti-cheat when they have everyone doing the donkey work for them..

    People are spending their enjoyment time instead recording and reporting cheaters/suspect players. Where is fun in that. You can try to play but it only takes one or two cheaters to ruin the flow and balance in a round.
  • Micas99
    812 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    So the question is why does FF seem to be working so poorly now?
    Right.. I've been wondering about that as well. I'm still not convinced that FF is actually active in the game despite the game appearing to announce FF as the reason a player has been banned. FF does seem to be active in BF4 though. If it is active in BF5, EA may have the threshold for banning set so high that it doesn't catch any but the most blatant players raging.. for whatever reason. It seems a stretch to think Dice is avoiding banning in order to prop up player counts, but who knows? Looks like the new consoles are going to land sometime next year, and with some stellar single player games coming out soon to tide me over, I think it's not a big deal that BF is plagued. In my view, BF5, regardless of cheating, isn't a very good game. I've been playing BF4 again and it's more fun to me, despite it also being plagued. At least with BF4, there's BF4DB.
This discussion has been closed.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!