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

Comments

  • AntiFox08
    73 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    People are getting banned, but sporadically it seems. At this point, I only really play this for Tides of War. The other day, there was a guy aimbotting and triggerbotting with a bolt-action in multiple matches I left and joined. In this day and age, the average person isn't stupid enough to download a free hack and get banned right as they spawn. People have subscriptions or have friends that do that stuff for a living. One site was able to detect when FF was taking screenshots and would wipe the screen for a few seconds, then turn all the ESP stuff back on. They also had a unique aimbot that would somehow internally lock onto a player and make shots hit like a laser, without the weapon being hard locked on or the character snapping around. They don't allow a hard lock or 100% headshots to avoid bans. Lots of people can fly under the radar, but some of these wannabe nonchalant ESP users are painfully obvious at times. RSP will always have the mouthbreather mods that kick people for being good, but when someone is Lewis gun rage hacking or even subtly using a ESP, that person can be spectated or just straight kicked, depending on the severity.
  • DigitalHype
    666 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    What chance in hell do we even have if even a EA forum Mod thinks 112-3 is totally ok !!
    The way I see things is every person playing has 32 other players at one time trying to kill them , and I can see 20-3 30-3 even 50-3 but 112-3 I really doubt its legit.
    Much of the BF community has developed cognitive dissonance, or have become fully delusional. Of course, score in't the full story. But, common sense used to be a thing. 112 - 3 in a round of conquest is absurd. 10 years ago, 60 - 3 being entertained as a possibility would have been laughed at. The bar has been pushed so far out now that people have lost the plot. I'm confident that many players have given up and choose to closet cheat in order to keep pace.
  • StarscreamUK
    7166 postsMember, Moderator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Moderator
    What chance in hell do we even have if even a EA forum Mod thinks 112-3 is totally ok !!
    The way I see things is every person playing has 32 other players at one time trying to kill them , and I can see 20-3 30-3 even 50-3 but 112-3 I really doubt its legit.
    Just because you cant do it doesnt mean others cant.

    When I watched someone get a higher score than that, it was using MY pc in front of me.  Before then I had suspicions about him, I ate my words. How much more legit would he have to be?
  • Stunl3y
    96 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    The fact this thread is 240 pages long tells a story in itself , I can honestly say never before have I seen cheating as bad in any BF game as this one. In bf2 - 3 and 4 maybe 1-2 cheats a month , in this game 1 a day I would say.
  • TyroneLoyd
    1211 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited May 19
    Welp ran across 3 this morning. The last one I mentioned his stats dont match at all after the 3rd round and he quickly turned them off going barely positive. Its sad to watch these days.

    @SquaddFather I mean ive dropped a 211 kill game so anything is plausible. The question is how it is done and what will stop it.
  • B0ng0_Banger
    1149 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    What chance in hell do we even have if even a EA forum Mod thinks 112-3 is totally ok !!
    The way I see things is every person playing has 32 other players at one time trying to kill them , and I can see 20-3 30-3 even 50-3 but 112-3 I really doubt its legit.
    Just because you cant do it doesnt mean others cant.

    When I watched someone get a higher score than that, it was using MY pc in front of me.  Before then I had suspicions about him, I ate my words. How much more legit would he have to be?
    just because 0.01% can do it doesn't mean 5% can. i spectated a few players like that, all of them were cheating.
  • VincentNZ
    2387 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    To this is still flawed perception. I highly doubt cheaters are more relevant than in previous BFs. Personally I did some calculations and figured I met six suspicious people. Since they were on tje opposing team I doubled this number as suspicious people on my team would not be noticeable to me. That makes that 12. I conveniently also played 1200 rounds. So this means 1% of my gaming experience is affected by cheaters, which is hardly relevant.
    The reason you notice this more is also simple. No rented servers, means no active admins, means no kicks and bans, so you are stuck with them for the whole round unless you leave. That sticks in your head more than a guy getting banned after killing everyone with the ammo crate.
    The rest is mostly flawed perception and confirmation bias. One round on Narvik, we pushed the team back to their base they only had E. Naturally I was doing better in that round than usual, having 27-3 or similar. Up comes player xXxNightelfonexXx. I kill him three times in a row, with a total of nine shots out of my MAS44. 100% accuracy. Now he calls out that I am cheating and from his narrow perspective, this is the truth. 100% accuracy is not possible. What he does not see is that I had 50 other engagements in that round and that my overall accuracy sits at 28% for the MAS. However he is suspicious, looks up the scoreboard, sees 27-3. Confirmation bias. Again what he does not see is me trying to hit anything with the Trombocino.
    It gets worse when it people think others are wallhacking or automatically spot other people. You come around a corner and the guy is just waiting there. What you are totally forgetting is that last week's TOW just gave recons a weapon for close quarters that works marvellous with flares and that they go up by the minute. Or you forget that you just took D on Fjell and that a smart MMG user just put his bipod down at B overlooking the pass. People just do not see that and are always inclined to blame others instead of reflecting on themselves.
  • LOLGotYerTags
    12311 postsMember, Moderator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Moderator
    What chance in hell do we even have if even a EA forum Mod thinks 112-3 is totally ok !!
    The way I see things is every person playing has 32 other players at one time trying to kill them , and I can see 20-3 30-3 even 50-3 but 112-3 I really doubt its legit.
    Bombers farming infantry with a decent pilot at the helm.. perfectly doable.

    Same for cautious tankers knowing when to retreat and when to push and from what angle ( with good map knowledge )

    Even on infantry it is possible to get similar scores,  for example on grand operations mode where days 1, 2 and 3 all count as one round.

    You could get 50 kills on day one,  37 kills on day 2 with 5 deaths,  And on day 3 another 40 kills,  the end of the operation would read : K = 127 / D = 5
  • parkingbrake
    3110 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    What chance in hell do we even have if even a EA forum Mod thinks 112-3 is totally ok !!
    The way I see things is every person playing has 32 other players at one time trying to kill them , and I can see 20-3 30-3 even 50-3 but 112-3 I really doubt its legit.
    Bombers farming infantry with a decent pilot at the helm.. perfectly doable.

    Same for cautious tankers knowing when to retreat and when to push and from what angle ( with good map knowledge )

    Even on infantry it is possible to get similar scores,  for example on grand operations mode where days 1, 2 and 3 all count as one round.

    You could get 50 kills on day one,  37 kills on day 2 with 5 deaths,  And on day 3 another 40 kills,  the end of the operation would read : K = 127 / D = 5
    Context is important.  A tank sniper or ace pilot is one thing, an infantry player on a CQ map who isn't even playing with friends and can go 166-1 as Support with accuracy that surpasses the top players in the game isn't good, he's a cheater.  When the opposing team is reporting in chat that he's killing them through walls and players on his own team are following him around and reporting he isn't being revived, that isn't skill, it's a hack.  

    Sure, in some situations amazing scores are possible--but not in all situations.  No legit player goes 166-1 in CQ and does that every time he plays, it would be difficult to do that with your whole squad as Medics constantly reviving you, much less running alone.  So when the end-of-round Best Squad comes up, and it's one guy in a locked squad with a score everyone knows is bogus--you're looking at a cheater.  That has nothing to do with an ace pilot or tanker, or Grand Operations, we're talking about seeing with our own eyes players do things impossible in the normal course of the game.  That's why I don't rely on just a score, there has to be evidence that the player is acting outside the normal operation of the game.  I once banned someone who was sniping the pilots out of jets in flight from inside a closed shipping container at his base--he didn't have a lot of kills, but the kills he had were simply impossible.

    I reported the 166-1 guy last week, he's still playing, I won't be surprised if he's still playing a month from now.  Meanwhile, over in PUBG, if you report a cheater like that you'll get a ban confirmation message within a day or two.  If PUBG can do it, in a game with way, way more players than BFV, why can't EA?
  • JPhysics
    804 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    This isn't so much about whether players can attain 100+ kills as infantry, a good player in the right conditions can.  This more about when 96 of those 100 kills are head shots and the player is using a STG or MG42.  These are the obvious cases and I'm seeing them almost on a daily basis right now.
  • LOLGotYerTags
    12311 postsMember, Moderator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Moderator
    @parkingbrake

    Don't get me wrong,  I'm not saying it's not possible in most circumstances,  But some legit players CAN and DO get those kinds of scores regularly,  Especially if they've also played competitively,  They aren't your regular run of the mill casual gamer,  Let's face it.

    Though in very very exact circumstances it is possible  ( bad team / team not paying attention / flanking and getting the drop on large groups from behind / constant reviving by friendlies ) and other such variables ( such as mentioned before..  tankers / pilots etc )

    I'm not on about conquest in particular however,  My example about grand ops is true to form,  all 3 days of the operation counts as one "round" 
  • stabbinhobo
    553 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    What chance in hell do we even have if even a EA forum Mod thinks 112-3 is totally ok !!
    The way I see things is every person playing has 32 other players at one time trying to kill them , and I can see 20-3 30-3 even 50-3 but 112-3 I really doubt its legit.
    Bombers farming infantry with a decent pilot at the helm.. perfectly doable.

    Same for cautious tankers knowing when to retreat and when to push and from what angle ( with good map knowledge )

    Even on infantry it is possible to get similar scores,  for example on grand operations mode where days 1, 2 and 3 all count as one round.

    You could get 50 kills on day one,  37 kills on day 2 with 5 deaths,  And on day 3 another 40 kills,  the end of the operation would read : K = 127 / D = 5
    Context is important.  A tank sniper or ace pilot is one thing, an infantry player on a CQ map who isn't even playing with friends and can go 166-1 as Support with accuracy that surpasses the top players in the game isn't good, he's a cheater.  When the opposing team is reporting in chat that he's killing them through walls and players on his own team are following him around and reporting he isn't being revived, that isn't skill, it's a hack.  

    Sure, in some situations amazing scores are possible--but not in all situations.  No legit player goes 166-1 in CQ and does that every time he plays, it would be difficult to do that with your whole squad as Medics constantly reviving you, much less running alone.  So when the end-of-round Best Squad comes up, and it's one guy in a locked squad with a score everyone knows is bogus--you're looking at a cheater.  That has nothing to do with an ace pilot or tanker, or Grand Operations, we're talking about seeing with our own eyes players do things impossible in the normal course of the game.  That's why I don't rely on just a score, there has to be evidence that the player is acting outside the normal operation of the game.  I once banned someone who was sniping the pilots out of jets in flight from inside a closed shipping container at his base--he didn't have a lot of kills, but the kills he had were simply impossible.

    I reported the 166-1 guy last week, he's still playing, I won't be surprised if he's still playing a month from now.  Meanwhile, over in PUBG, if you report a cheater like that you'll get a ban confirmation message within a day or two.  If PUBG can do it, in a game with way, way more players than BFV, why can't EA?
    ^^ Complete lack of desire to do so... the forums have active moderation.. the game servers don't. What more needs to be said? 

    Fire the staff supposedly working diligently on the AC.. hire full time server mods. Problem solved. Where do I collect my salary for doing EA/DICE's job for them? 
  • VincentNZ
    2387 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    What chance in hell do we even have if even a EA forum Mod thinks 112-3 is totally ok !!
    The way I see things is every person playing has 32 other players at one time trying to kill them , and I can see 20-3 30-3 even 50-3 but 112-3 I really doubt its legit.
    Bombers farming infantry with a decent pilot at the helm.. perfectly doable.

    Same for cautious tankers knowing when to retreat and when to push and from what angle ( with good map knowledge )

    Even on infantry it is possible to get similar scores,  for example on grand operations mode where days 1, 2 and 3 all count as one round.

    You could get 50 kills on day one,  37 kills on day 2 with 5 deaths,  And on day 3 another 40 kills,  the end of the operation would read : K = 127 / D = 5
    Context is important.  A tank sniper or ace pilot is one thing, an infantry player on a CQ map who isn't even playing with friends and can go 166-1 as Support with accuracy that surpasses the top players in the game isn't good, he's a cheater.  When the opposing team is reporting in chat that he's killing them through walls and players on his own team are following him around and reporting he isn't being revived, that isn't skill, it's a hack.  

    Sure, in some situations amazing scores are possible--but not in all situations.  No legit player goes 166-1 in CQ and does that every time he plays, it would be difficult to do that with your whole squad as Medics constantly reviving you, much less running alone.  So when the end-of-round Best Squad comes up, and it's one guy in a locked squad with a score everyone knows is bogus--you're looking at a cheater.  That has nothing to do with an ace pilot or tanker, or Grand Operations, we're talking about seeing with our own eyes players do things impossible in the normal course of the game.  That's why I don't rely on just a score, there has to be evidence that the player is acting outside the normal operation of the game.  I once banned someone who was sniping the pilots out of jets in flight from inside a closed shipping container at his base--he didn't have a lot of kills, but the kills he had were simply impossible.

    I reported the 166-1 guy last week, he's still playing, I won't be surprised if he's still playing a month from now.  Meanwhile, over in PUBG, if you report a cheater like that you'll get a ban confirmation message within a day or two.  If PUBG can do it, in a game with way, way more players than BFV, why can't EA?
    ^^ Complete lack of desire to do so... the forums have active moderation.. the game servers don't. What more needs to be said? 

    Fire the staff supposedly working diligently on the AC.. hire full time server mods. Problem solved. Where do I collect my salary for doing EA/DICE's job for them? 

    So say, 20k concurrent players on 64 player servers, conservative estimation. That is 312 servers, in need of a admin. Working in three shifts, so that is 936 admins. Say to avoid the different tax values, an hourly wage of 12 dollars. That is 89k $ per day or 2.7 million dollars per month, not assuming any surcharges for weekends, holidays or late/early shifts, this is EA after all. Basic accounting, that is why you do not get any salary.
  • parkingbrake
    3110 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    @parkingbrake

    Don't get me wrong,  I'm not saying it's not possible in most circumstances,  But some legit players CAN and DO get those kinds of scores regularly,  Especially if they've also played competitively,  They aren't your regular run of the mill casual gamer,  Let's face it.

    Though in very very exact circumstances it is possible  ( bad team / team not paying attention / flanking and getting the drop on large groups from behind / constant reviving by friendlies ) and other such variables ( such as mentioned before..  tankers / pilots etc )

    I'm not on about conquest in particular however,  My example about grand ops is true to form,  all 3 days of the operation counts as one "round" 
    In my case it was a couple of things that looked suspicious.  I'd parachute onto the crane on Noshahr Canals TDM and use the crossbow to get headshots on players below.  I pushed my headshot stat so high with that weapon that Cheat-O-Meter boosted my score from the lowest possible 0.0%, to 2.0%--but even that was a fraction of what admins considered suspicious enough to justify a ban.  The other thing was the glitched mortar when BF4 launched, I could get kill streaks of fifty or sixty until I got bored and did something else--anyone who didn't know how I was doing that would have thought I had to have been cheating.
     
    So it's possible to be legit and look suspicious, that's why I generally need more than a high score to suspect a hack, and in this game I'm seeing players who can do things that clearly are not within the normal operation of the game.  The problem is that EA seems to have trouble seeing those folks no matter how outrageous they are, it's discouraging for those of us who would rather uninstall than use a hack.
  • stabbinhobo
    553 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    VincentNZ said:
    What chance in hell do we even have if even a EA forum Mod thinks 112-3 is totally ok !!
    The way I see things is every person playing has 32 other players at one time trying to kill them , and I can see 20-3 30-3 even 50-3 but 112-3 I really doubt its legit.
    Bombers farming infantry with a decent pilot at the helm.. perfectly doable.

    Same for cautious tankers knowing when to retreat and when to push and from what angle ( with good map knowledge )

    Even on infantry it is possible to get similar scores,  for example on grand operations mode where days 1, 2 and 3 all count as one round.

    You could get 50 kills on day one,  37 kills on day 2 with 5 deaths,  And on day 3 another 40 kills,  the end of the operation would read : K = 127 / D = 5
    Context is important.  A tank sniper or ace pilot is one thing, an infantry player on a CQ map who isn't even playing with friends and can go 166-1 as Support with accuracy that surpasses the top players in the game isn't good, he's a cheater.  When the opposing team is reporting in chat that he's killing them through walls and players on his own team are following him around and reporting he isn't being revived, that isn't skill, it's a hack.  

    Sure, in some situations amazing scores are possible--but not in all situations.  No legit player goes 166-1 in CQ and does that every time he plays, it would be difficult to do that with your whole squad as Medics constantly reviving you, much less running alone.  So when the end-of-round Best Squad comes up, and it's one guy in a locked squad with a score everyone knows is bogus--you're looking at a cheater.  That has nothing to do with an ace pilot or tanker, or Grand Operations, we're talking about seeing with our own eyes players do things impossible in the normal course of the game.  That's why I don't rely on just a score, there has to be evidence that the player is acting outside the normal operation of the game.  I once banned someone who was sniping the pilots out of jets in flight from inside a closed shipping container at his base--he didn't have a lot of kills, but the kills he had were simply impossible.

    I reported the 166-1 guy last week, he's still playing, I won't be surprised if he's still playing a month from now.  Meanwhile, over in PUBG, if you report a cheater like that you'll get a ban confirmation message within a day or two.  If PUBG can do it, in a game with way, way more players than BFV, why can't EA?
    ^^ Complete lack of desire to do so... the forums have active moderation.. the game servers don't. What more needs to be said? 

    Fire the staff supposedly working diligently on the AC.. hire full time server mods. Problem solved. Where do I collect my salary for doing EA/DICE's job for them? 

    So say, 20k concurrent players on 64 player servers, conservative estimation. That is 312 servers, in need of a admin. Working in three shifts, so that is 936 admins. Say to avoid the different tax values, an hourly wage of 12 dollars. That is 89k $ per day or 2.7 million dollars per month, not assuming any surcharges for weekends, holidays or late/early shifts, this is EA after all. Basic accounting, that is why you do not get any salary.
    ^^^ Not sure where the 20k number comes from... but I'll play. 

    1) You do not need an admin for every server.. though it sure would be nice. RSP fixes that immediately as most teams maintain their servers as it's their reputation.  
    2) We've been made to police the servers ourselves with ineffective reporting system, I'm sure there would be a LOT of volunteers if given admin rights to simply kick blatant hacks. And I mean permaban.. get MAC address and IP so they cannot just buy another account easily. 
    3) If there was active administration (you know.. like when there is REAL RSP) the number of blatant hackers would thin quickly requiring less manpower to maintain. 
    4) The subtle hackers would be harder.. always takes time. But the subtle guys are not the ones currently wrekin gameplay like the solo guys going 60-70/5 and completely tipping the balance of any given round. They have an impact... but it's tolerable most times. 
  • TheDudeAbides333
    8 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    If EA/Dice doesn’t want to lose that sale to the cheaters. They should isolate cheaters in their own servers so they can cheat against each other.
  • parkingbrake
    3110 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    There was a guy this evening, he was using some sort of score hack,  within the 1st minute his score was over 100,000, everyone else was under 2000, holding the tab key I could see he was in our main base just stood, 0 kills/deaths his score just went up and up, usually it's esp or aimbot

    or just a medic doing his job right. but 100.000 is kinda strange... why not going for a screenshot
    Did you not read my post, he was in the main base and didn't move, meds don't get that kind of score.
    This particular guy, doing same thing 24/7, just to get screenshots and bragging after at their ''forums'' about world records. He's cheating and spamming V1's too, even from 1st minute of round sometimes. Once, was in same match. Spitted out 3-4 V1's in just 20 minutes. Check global leaderboards. But the strange part is, he's keep doing it for months, and still playing every day. 
    That's the frustrating part, the length of time it takes to get even the most obvious hack user banned.  When I reported a cheater in PUBG I'd get a message sometimes the next day saying that player had been banned.  PUBG has sold something like seven or eight times as many copies as BFV, so why does it take EA so much longer to process a cheat report?  I think it's because PUBG still relies on the PC platform, so they have had to get more serious about dealing with cheaters.  But I think EA now cares so little about PC that they see no need to work up a sweat over cheating.
  • parkingbrake
    3110 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    What chance in hell do we even have if even a EA forum Mod thinks 112-3 is totally ok !!
    The way I see things is every person playing has 32 other players at one time trying to kill them , and I can see 20-3 30-3 even 50-3 but 112-3 I really doubt its legit.
    Much of the BF community has developed cognitive dissonance, or have become fully delusional. Of course, score in't the full story. But, common sense used to be a thing. 112 - 3 in a round of conquest is absurd. 10 years ago, 60 - 3 being entertained as a possibility would have been laughed at. The bar has been pushed so far out now that people have lost the plot. I'm confident that many players have given up and choose to closet cheat in order to keep pace.
    It's bizarre that someone with flat-out unbelievable stats can keep playing and playing.  A guy I reported a few days ago is getting ten kills per minute with bolt action rifles, his sniper rifle accuracy is more than double that of the highest scoring sniper in the game, he has a skill streak of 154, and in the round where I saw him he was 166-1 playing as Support on a CQ map.  How can FF or whatever other anti-cheat they're apparently using not red-flag someone like that?  They don't need to wait for a ban wave to nail him, his stats are so extreme that whoever sold him his hack would be disgusted he has everything turned up so high, it's not like banning him would tip off a hack creator to something he needs to adjust.

    Silence from EA and inaction from the anti-cheat(s) are corrosive.  Legit players see blatant cheaters getting away with it and start to wonder how many more are out there just being a little more subtle.  If you want to know why there are so many hackusations, maybe it's because even the obvious hack users appear to be getting away with it.
  • parkingbrake
    3110 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    What chance in hell do we even have if even a EA forum Mod thinks 112-3 is totally ok !!
    The way I see things is every person playing has 32 other players at one time trying to kill them , and I can see 20-3 30-3 even 50-3 but 112-3 I really doubt its legit.
    Bombers farming infantry with a decent pilot at the helm.. perfectly doable.

    Same for cautious tankers knowing when to retreat and when to push and from what angle ( with good map knowledge )

    Even on infantry it is possible to get similar scores,  for example on grand operations mode where days 1, 2 and 3 all count as one round.

    You could get 50 kills on day one,  37 kills on day 2 with 5 deaths,  And on day 3 another 40 kills,  the end of the operation would read : K = 127 / D = 5
    Context is important.  A tank sniper or ace pilot is one thing, an infantry player on a CQ map who isn't even playing with friends and can go 166-1 as Support with accuracy that surpasses the top players in the game isn't good, he's a cheater.  When the opposing team is reporting in chat that he's killing them through walls and players on his own team are following him around and reporting he isn't being revived, that isn't skill, it's a hack.  

    Sure, in some situations amazing scores are possible--but not in all situations.  No legit player goes 166-1 in CQ and does that every time he plays, it would be difficult to do that with your whole squad as Medics constantly reviving you, much less running alone.  So when the end-of-round Best Squad comes up, and it's one guy in a locked squad with a score everyone knows is bogus--you're looking at a cheater.  That has nothing to do with an ace pilot or tanker, or Grand Operations, we're talking about seeing with our own eyes players do things impossible in the normal course of the game.  That's why I don't rely on just a score, there has to be evidence that the player is acting outside the normal operation of the game.  I once banned someone who was sniping the pilots out of jets in flight from inside a closed shipping container at his base--he didn't have a lot of kills, but the kills he had were simply impossible.

    I reported the 166-1 guy last week, he's still playing, I won't be surprised if he's still playing a month from now.  Meanwhile, over in PUBG, if you report a cheater like that you'll get a ban confirmation message within a day or two.  If PUBG can do it, in a game with way, way more players than BFV, why can't EA?
    ^^ Complete lack of desire to do so... the forums have active moderation.. the game servers don't. What more needs to be said? 

    Fire the staff supposedly working diligently on the AC.. hire full time server mods. Problem solved. Where do I collect my salary for doing EA/DICE's job for them? 
    They don't need to hire admins, they just need to bring back rented servers with full admin control (and keep an eye on them to deal with the occasional "badmin").  BF4 had 2,500 rented servers at one point, that represents many thousands of admins who all worked for free on servers that didn't cost EA anything.  But they also need to supply full data to stats analysis services like admins once had access to, e.g. Cheat-O-Meter, iStats, BF4DB (the original one).  When an admin can look at a player's stats and see that his sniper rifle accuracy is more than twice that of the highest scoring sniper in the game, he can hit the ban button with confidence.  EA made all that go away by blocking those stats service from accessing game data, then they disabled outside server control software, then they limited admin powers on servers in BF1, and finally they went with no rented servers at all in this game.  They say rented servers are coming back--apparently even a company as disconnect from its customers as EA finally realized they'd made a mistake.  But until we know exactly how the new rented servers will work it remains to be seen if they are at least part of the solution to the very real cheating problem.
  • VincentNZ
    2387 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    VincentNZ said:
    What chance in hell do we even have if even a EA forum Mod thinks 112-3 is totally ok !!
    The way I see things is every person playing has 32 other players at one time trying to kill them , and I can see 20-3 30-3 even 50-3 but 112-3 I really doubt its legit.
    Bombers farming infantry with a decent pilot at the helm.. perfectly doable.

    Same for cautious tankers knowing when to retreat and when to push and from what angle ( with good map knowledge )

    Even on infantry it is possible to get similar scores,  for example on grand operations mode where days 1, 2 and 3 all count as one round.

    You could get 50 kills on day one,  37 kills on day 2 with 5 deaths,  And on day 3 another 40 kills,  the end of the operation would read : K = 127 / D = 5
    Context is important.  A tank sniper or ace pilot is one thing, an infantry player on a CQ map who isn't even playing with friends and can go 166-1 as Support with accuracy that surpasses the top players in the game isn't good, he's a cheater.  When the opposing team is reporting in chat that he's killing them through walls and players on his own team are following him around and reporting he isn't being revived, that isn't skill, it's a hack.  

    Sure, in some situations amazing scores are possible--but not in all situations.  No legit player goes 166-1 in CQ and does that every time he plays, it would be difficult to do that with your whole squad as Medics constantly reviving you, much less running alone.  So when the end-of-round Best Squad comes up, and it's one guy in a locked squad with a score everyone knows is bogus--you're looking at a cheater.  That has nothing to do with an ace pilot or tanker, or Grand Operations, we're talking about seeing with our own eyes players do things impossible in the normal course of the game.  That's why I don't rely on just a score, there has to be evidence that the player is acting outside the normal operation of the game.  I once banned someone who was sniping the pilots out of jets in flight from inside a closed shipping container at his base--he didn't have a lot of kills, but the kills he had were simply impossible.

    I reported the 166-1 guy last week, he's still playing, I won't be surprised if he's still playing a month from now.  Meanwhile, over in PUBG, if you report a cheater like that you'll get a ban confirmation message within a day or two.  If PUBG can do it, in a game with way, way more players than BFV, why can't EA?
    ^^ Complete lack of desire to do so... the forums have active moderation.. the game servers don't. What more needs to be said? 

    Fire the staff supposedly working diligently on the AC.. hire full time server mods. Problem solved. Where do I collect my salary for doing EA/DICE's job for them? 

    So say, 20k concurrent players on 64 player servers, conservative estimation. That is 312 servers, in need of a admin. Working in three shifts, so that is 936 admins. Say to avoid the different tax values, an hourly wage of 12 dollars. That is 89k $ per day or 2.7 million dollars per month, not assuming any surcharges for weekends, holidays or late/early shifts, this is EA after all. Basic accounting, that is why you do not get any salary.
    ^^^ Not sure where the 20k number comes from... but I'll play. 

    1) You do not need an admin for every server.. though it sure would be nice. RSP fixes that immediately as most teams maintain their servers as it's their reputation.  
    2) We've been made to police the servers ourselves with ineffective reporting system, I'm sure there would be a LOT of volunteers if given admin rights to simply kick blatant hacks. And I mean permaban.. get MAC address and IP so they cannot just buy another account easily. 
    3) If there was active administration (you know.. like when there is REAL RSP) the number of blatant hackers would thin quickly requiring less manpower to maintain. 
    4) The subtle hackers would be harder.. always takes time. But the subtle guys are not the ones currently wrekin gameplay like the solo guys going 60-70/5 and completely tipping the balance of any given round. They have an impact... but it's tolerable most times. 

    The 20k was just a guess of the average concurrent players across all platforms at all times. Conservative guess, so that we have something to work with.
    1) Yeah, well of course RSP would fix it, by removing them from the server, that needs an actvie admin as well though. This is not at all likely. Anyway RSP is not coming back in the needed form and there are reasons for that.
    2) I've never made a report, why would I? Cheaters are not a relevant issue in my gameplay experience. As elaborated 1 in 100 rounds. I would not want the permaban power in the hands of the players either, because they are not capable of an unbiased decision, it is just lynch law.
    3) It would not thin out, most players would still play on the Official servers, as seen in BF1, all you could do was kick them from the server which relocated the problem.
    4) These subtle hacks are always what puzzled me, they are so convenient. You do not have to die to the Lewis Gun on every spawn, you can justify and call people hacker because they have no recoil, always know where the enemy is etc.. A guy kills you three times incredibly fast, you check his stats, find nothing spectacular, and conclude it must be one of those "subtle hackers". That is confirmation bias.
    The biggest issue with RSP in BF4 were the admins themselves, switching teams, enforcing or not enforcing rules, kicking out of spite or simply doing nothing. I was admin on a server with a "no RPG on inf"-rule. I found that stupid, so I never kicked for it, heck when I am using PDWs and need to engage someone at 100m I will use the SMAW all day. I would kick people on Metro or Pearl Market that would hide on stairs with C4 with no warning, since this is the only thing I considered asocial and foul play. So that is arbitrary by definition.
    In BF4 this would cause more serious issues, too. When EA bans your account then this is due to solid research and analysis on their part. BF4 had metabans with shared banlists that 80% of the servers were using and if you got on one of these because a foul admin put you on them, playing the game became rather hard, since you would be banned on all servers sharing the list.
This discussion has been closed.