[Megathread] BFV and Cheating Discussion

Comments

  • TheInfielder
    18 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Still waiting for my comment to be approved by some Mods...
  • Oxize
    117 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited January 21
    Last weeks its a cheater heaven. Several cheaters in week we are facing. Where is the Fairfight protection, never see it active in the chat. Its going to far now. Act now DICE/EA
  • Oxize
    117 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited January 21
    viper63x said:
    @EA_Tom maybe you could learn something from runescapes anti bot program.

    it uses a thing called bot watch, and it is  a large collection of data of how normal player would play.

    this is based on Artificial intelligence instead of looking entirely on client modification, you need to  look deep into how player is playing.

    looking for client modification is good, but these things can easily be patched by the cheating companys, rather quickly.

    you should  consider hiring "James Thompson" as he is the creator of bot watch.



    Fairfight protection was something similar. Its not ingame active. Why they removed it?
  • TheInfielder
    18 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    In the moment it feels like 8/10 rounds I play has at least 1 obvious and at least 4 suspicious players in it. I appreciate players like Rattoner who take their time to spectate those cheaters and try to "hand them over" to DICE/EA. But I still think that this should not be a players job. We all paid for the game and I contribute to production by buying the Chapter Booster Packs. But right now with no absolutely no statement from any Official to the current state of hacking in-game, I really start to think about not giving anymore money.

    I know that DICE and EA are enterprises who try to make profit by releasing a product. This product now has a big cheating issue which will scare away all the legit costumers and players soon, if there isn't a working AntiCheat which banns players for lifetime. It shouldn't be that easy for cheaters to get their hands on another account to continue their cheating. If nothing changes nobody of the honest players will continue to buy addons/future games and the cheaters will stop playing because there is nobody who can be annoyed by their cheats.

    PLEASE F*S DO SOMETHING OR AT LEAST GIVE US SOME INSIGHT ON YOUR PLANS REGARDING THE CURRENT STATE.
  • Dr_Steamfur
    337 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Rattoner said:
    @Rattoner

    You missed the point entirely in that response.
    You cannot see micro adjustment in aim in spectator mode. The server sided tick rate (10) in spectator mode cannot handle fast movements which is why you see an unnaturally slow jerking motion during aim. This is interpolation. During spectator you only see what the server sees which means any dropped packets or slow/ delayed packets will be interpolated by your client(if i remember correctly)
    Looking at a stream and spectate in real time (ive done this too many times already) you can see stark differences in fluidity and oddities within aiming and movement.


    Secondly during spectator mode you will have instances where the server (spec) will clearly show smoke is fully on your screen but on the players client there may not be anything there or have already dissipated. You have to keep an eye on things such as that when you call someone out for shooting you through smoke which is why I stated someone streaming is good evidence of there1 to 1 view. I never stated anything about overlays so I'm not sure what your getting at there as I'm specifically speaking towards the client itself.

    -unfortunately I dont have the clip available that shows this from one of these threads- if anyone can find it let me know.

    Thirdly the experience note is strictly a online multiplayer reference. Ive been though countless free to play , AAA , etc fps games and have seen companies completely drop support for games. This was no where near a brag only a reference to what I have experienced which some can be very responsive and others giving the silent treatment. None never stopped banning cheaters but you could tell from an industry standpoint it can wear on a community and its devs.


    So yes I do feel like you completely misunderstood what I stated.

    "I did not miss anything. The thing is what YOU look for in a cheater and what I look for are different. I am not looking for how fast they kill (unless its an obvious head shot aim bot spree). I am not looking for recoil, heck I am not even looking for macros that they use. I am looking for patterns of engagement with the enemy player that always affords them the advantage. This is a clear indication of wall hacking, seeing the enemies position on the playfield. This is the most abused hack"


    You "assume" i only look for that which wouldn't make any sense whatsoever since you cant look for that in the current version of spectator. Also your videos are a contradiction of what you state. You are looking for both aimbotting and wall hacks its even in the titles of your video.

    I didn't read the rest because of the contradiction. If you're not willing to look at it as a whole(both sides) then that's your problem.
    There are a few videos that i see are inconclusive. You can figure out yourself oh great one.



    -edit read the rest. didn't help
    My videos are not even remotely a contraction. I stated I spectate to find aim botters (who are obvious) and wall hackers. Perhaps you do not understand what a wall hacker is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheating_in_online_games

    Watching someone and looking for their patterns to determine if they actively hunt the enemy team in a linear or near linear fashion is indicative of them using wall hacks. 

    As far as my videos. I know 100% for a FACT that you did not watch all of them in their entirety....I have because I recorded them. Not only did I watch them while recording, I have watched them after the fact. The fact that you cant not even read my post in its entirety shows that you are too lazy to watch the videos in their entirety. Your have no point. Your argument failed. Its time to move on Tyrone. 
  • LOLGotYerTags
    14290 postsMember, Moderator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Moderator
    Why are all threads being locked and redirected to this thread? This is just a containment echo-chamber. EA/Dice doesn't care about/read this thread, it's not providing anything useful for anyone except "This game is actively inviting cheaters into it since there is no negatives towards using cheats in this game"?
    Like, at least let people make threads offering different types of discussion, geez.

    That is discussing moderation and thus a violation of the rules.

    https://forums.battlefield.com/en-us/discussion/137240/battlefield-forum-rules-and-guidelines

    With that said,  Having multiple threads on the subject isn't going to add anything new that can't be posted in a currently active thread.

    Also,  Multiple threads just creates spam,  So of course it makes more sense having one central thread where the issue can be discussed at length without violating any rules.
  • GenCuster
    187 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited January 21
    Finally we have someone who has "ADMITTED" to use cheat .....
    Now the logical question ....
    "Why are you doing it?"
    give us a logical and real reason.

  • Dr_Steamfur
    337 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Why are all threads being locked and redirected to this thread? This is just a containment echo-chamber. EA/Dice doesn't care about/read this thread, it's not providing anything useful for anyone except "This game is actively inviting cheaters into it since there is no negatives towards using cheats in this game"?
    Like, at least let people make threads offering different types of discussion, geez.

    That is discussing moderation and thus a violation of the rules.

    https://forums.battlefield.com/en-us/discussion/137240/battlefield-forum-rules-and-guidelines

    With that said,  Having multiple threads on the subject isn't going to add anything new that can't be posted in a currently active thread.

    Also,  Multiple threads just creates spam,  So of course it makes more sense having one central thread where the issue can be discussed at length without violating any rules.
    Having multiple threads on cheating is not spam, I don't think you know what "spam" is, ESPECIALLY when those new cheat threads are by new players. That is not spam, it is not the definition of spam. Its called feedback, you would do well to listen to the players instead of dismissing them.
    However, what having multiple threads on cheating DOES do is showcases just how terribly bad cheating is in this game. How much of it there actually is. It helps to showcase that cheating is a VERY REAL ISSUE. Of course we are not stupid. We know DICE/EA just wants to pull the rug over the fact cheating exists, to disguise it, to down play it. But every time DICE/EA thinks they are out maneuvering the customer, the customer shakes their head and says "no..I dont think so. You are not playing me for a fool."

    Cant DICE/EA simply be honest and say "We failed at launch, this caused us to not sell many copies of BFV and the people who hold the purse strings do not want to invest any more money into the game because its not making money. This is why development is slow, this is why we are not investing any time, effort or cost into a working anti-cheat."

    You know, if you just came out and said the truth vs trying to cover it up players would respect you more. Not saying you will get ultimate respect, but they will respect you more. 
  • TyroneLoyd_TV
    1743 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited January 21
    Rattoner wrote: »
    (Quote)
    My videos are not even remotely a contraction. I stated I spectate to find aim botters (who are obvious) and wall hackers. Perhaps you do not understand what a wall hacker is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheating_in_online_games

    Watching someone and looking for their patterns to determine if they actively hunt the enemy team in a linear or near linear fashion is indicative of them using wall hacks. 

    As far as my videos. I know 100% for a FACT that you did not watch all of them in their entirety....I have because I recorded them. Not only did I watch them while recording, I have watched them after the fact. The fact that you cant not even read my post in its entirety shows that you are too lazy to watch the videos in their entirety. Your have no point. Your argument failed. Its time to move on Tyrone. 

    When was it a requirement to watch all your videos when I only mentioned a few being inconclusive. You're not making any sense here.
    You stated you only look for wallers. Then now you state you look for both.
    Which is it?

    Secondly if you read my edit a day ago you would of seen I have already read your post. So again what are you talking about?


    The entire argument is how spectator is not an accurate tool to use for aimbotting, softlocks, and other forms of cheating.
    You wont go into detail as how sound is a determining factor to player information, crosshair placement related to sound , map cues etc. You cant always rely on the outline view to be the determining factor. Which my entrie post is about.
    This is what "you" disagreed with along with your tin foil theory of the devs creating cheats.


    Why would not respond to something I'm well versed with and was given such an asinine statement?
    Post edited by TyroneLoyd_TV on
  • Carbonic
    1890 postsMember, Moderator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Moderator
    Oxize said:
    ....Where is the Fairfight protection, never see it active in the chat. Its going to far now. Act now DICE/EA
    Just because the chat is not being spammed with messages that X people have been banned by Fairfight, that doesn't mean Fairfight is not active, it just means it's not spamming the chat about it anymore. We, to my knowledge, don't know why it's not spamming the chat anymore but we can't come to the conclusion that Fairfight it not active because of it.

    Rattoner said:
    Having multiple threads on cheating is not spam, I don't think you know what "spam" is, ESPECIALLY when those new cheat threads are by new players. That is not spam, it is not the definition of spam. Its called feedback, you would do well to listen to the players instead of dismissing them.
    However, what having multiple threads on cheating DOES do is showcases just how terribly bad cheating is in this game. How much of it there actually is. It helps to showcase that cheating is a VERY REAL ISSUE. Of course we are not stupid. We know DICE/EA just wants to pull the rug over the fact cheating exists, to disguise it, to down play it. But every time DICE/EA thinks they are out maneuvering the customer, the customer shakes their head and says "no..I dont think so. You are not playing me for a fool."
    Sure. It however doesn't really matter what it is, the rules specify:
    "Use the search feature to see if there’s already a thread for anything you want to discuss. If there is, use it instead of making a new one. Try to include all your points in a single place."
    It's not a rule that is enforced that often but with some topics the amount of threads become too much, so much it gets hard to use the forum properly, talk gets scattered all over the place and it's hard to find other topics to talk about - in these cases a megathread is made. For consistently popular megathreads, like this one, the megathread is even stickied making it appear in the top of the forum section at all times. That is the opposite of disguising anything - there not being several threads on the same topic does not diminish the topic, especially not with the amount of posts megathreads tend to have.
    You can interpret the lack of response from EA/DICE how you like and that's fair, but the moderators of this forum make megathreads have nothing to do with hiding anything and it's just silly to think so.
  • OP_Glitchmobile
    972 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Carbonic said:
    Oxize said:
    ....Where is the Fairfight protection, never see it active in the chat. Its going to far now. Act now DICE/EA
    Just because the chat is not being spammed with messages that X people have been banned by Fairfight, that doesn't mean Fairfight is not active, it just means it's not spamming the chat about it anymore. We, to my knowledge, don't know why it's not spamming the chat anymore but we can't come to the conclusion that Fairfight it not active because of it.

    Rattoner said:
    Having multiple threads on cheating is not spam, I don't think you know what "spam" is, ESPECIALLY when those new cheat threads are by new players. That is not spam, it is not the definition of spam. Its called feedback, you would do well to listen to the players instead of dismissing them.
    However, what having multiple threads on cheating DOES do is showcases just how terribly bad cheating is in this game. How much of it there actually is. It helps to showcase that cheating is a VERY REAL ISSUE. Of course we are not stupid. We know DICE/EA just wants to pull the rug over the fact cheating exists, to disguise it, to down play it. But every time DICE/EA thinks they are out maneuvering the customer, the customer shakes their head and says "no..I dont think so. You are not playing me for a fool."
    Sure. It however doesn't really matter what it is, the rules specify:
    "Use the search feature to see if there’s already a thread for anything you want to discuss. If there is, use it instead of making a new one. Try to include all your points in a single place."
    It's not a rule that is enforced that often but with some topics the amount of threads become too much, so much it gets hard to use the forum properly, talk gets scattered all over the place and it's hard to find other topics to talk about - in these cases a megathread is made. For consistently popular megathreads, like this one, the megathread is even stickied making it appear in the top of the forum section at all times. That is the opposite of disguising anything - there not being several threads on the same topic does not diminish the topic, especially not with the amount of posts megathreads tend to have.
    You can interpret the lack of response from EA/DICE how you like and that's fair, but the moderators of this forum make megathreads have nothing to do with hiding anything and it's just silly to think so.
    I have to agree, i remember how the f.ex PUBG forum used to look like...and still problably does on STEAM...you could not see ANY other threads than ''cheater this and that''...making it allmost impossible to find and discuss something else.
  • Dr_Steamfur
    337 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited January 21
    Rattoner wrote: »
    (Quote)
    My videos are not even remotely a contraction. I stated I spectate to find aim botters (who are obvious) and wall hackers. Perhaps you do not understand what a wall hacker is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheating_in_online_games

    Watching someone and looking for their patterns to determine if they actively hunt the enemy team in a linear or near linear fashion is indicative of them using wall hacks. 

    As far as my videos. I know 100% for a FACT that you did not watch all of them in their entirety....I have because I recorded them. Not only did I watch them while recording, I have watched them after the fact. The fact that you cant not even read my post in its entirety shows that you are too lazy to watch the videos in their entirety. Your have no point. Your argument failed. Its time to move on Tyrone. 

    When was it a requirement to watch all your videos when I only mentioned a few being inconclusive. You're not making any sense here.
    You stated you only look for wallers. Then now you state you look for both.
    Which is it?

    Secondly if you read my edit a day ago you would of seen I have already read your post. So again what are you talking about?


    The entire argument is how spectator is not an accurate tool to use for aimbotting, softlocks, and other forms of cheating.
    You wont go into detail as how sound is a determining factor to player information, crosshair placement related to sound , map cues etc. You cant always rely on the outline view to be the determining factor. Which my entrie post is about.
    This is what "you" disagreed with along with your tin foil theory of the devs creating cheats.


    Why would not respond to something I'm well versed with and was given such an asinine statement?
    1. You can not determine that my ability to call out cheaters is "inconclusive" when you have not studied the same material I have in depth. This should be obvious.
    2. I never stated I only look for wall hackers. In fact I stated that I don't use the methods you ASSUMED I used. However I did mention (if you go back and read it) that I do look for rage hackers who are obvious with their aim bots. I mostly look for wall hackers because it A. Gives the most advantage to the "sneaky" player, and B. Its the most widely used most likely due to A.
    3. My entire argument of using specator to find wall hackers and aim botters is well founded, documented and it simply works. I have a plethora of aim botting videos showcasing this. As I stated, if you actually watched them all, you would see this. Your argument is based on ignorance of the facts which simply means you have no ground to stand on.
    4. You CAN rely on using outlines to find wall hackers and as I previously mentioned (but of course you failed to read it) I even use this in conjunction with twich to observe their squad to determine if enemies are being called out in comms. If you study the same player in depth (which you have not, and I have) you will see patterns (which I already discussed). Using these tools on a number of maps, when they are in squad and out of squad are excellent indicators that they could be cheating. I then pass this to dice and let dice determine. Sadly though even the most blatant rage hackers live on for months and months.
    5. So far that I can tell, you are not well versed in this argument, not even in the slightest. In fact I would give you a failing grade. 
  • Dr_Steamfur
    337 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Carbonic said:
    Oxize said:
    ....Where is the Fairfight protection, never see it active in the chat. Its going to far now. Act now DICE/EA
    Just because the chat is not being spammed with messages that X people have been banned by Fairfight, that doesn't mean Fairfight is not active, it just means it's not spamming the chat about it anymore. We, to my knowledge, don't know why it's not spamming the chat anymore but we can't come to the conclusion that Fairfight it not active because of it.

    Rattoner said:
    Having multiple threads on cheating is not spam, I don't think you know what "spam" is, ESPECIALLY when those new cheat threads are by new players. That is not spam, it is not the definition of spam. Its called feedback, you would do well to listen to the players instead of dismissing them.
    However, what having multiple threads on cheating DOES do is showcases just how terribly bad cheating is in this game. How much of it there actually is. It helps to showcase that cheating is a VERY REAL ISSUE. Of course we are not stupid. We know DICE/EA just wants to pull the rug over the fact cheating exists, to disguise it, to down play it. But every time DICE/EA thinks they are out maneuvering the customer, the customer shakes their head and says "no..I dont think so. You are not playing me for a fool."
    Sure. It however doesn't really matter what it is, the rules specify:
    "Use the search feature to see if there’s already a thread for anything you want to discuss. If there is, use it instead of making a new one. Try to include all your points in a single place."
    It's not a rule that is enforced that often but with some topics the amount of threads become too much, so much it gets hard to use the forum properly, talk gets scattered all over the place and it's hard to find other topics to talk about - in these cases a megathread is made. For consistently popular megathreads, like this one, the megathread is even stickied making it appear in the top of the forum section at all times. That is the opposite of disguising anything - there not being several threads on the same topic does not diminish the topic, especially not with the amount of posts megathreads tend to have.
    You can interpret the lack of response from EA/DICE how you like and that's fair, but the moderators of this forum make megathreads have nothing to do with hiding anything and it's just silly to think so.
    I can tell that the search feature rule is not enforced literally AT ALL...except in the case of cheating. In fact, the ONLY megathread here IS the cheating thread. The rest are official announcements. We can deduce that this is one of two reasons.
    1. EA/DICE cares DEEPLY for their customers and wants to ensure the product is a fair and balanced environment for all to partake in, so all the cheating posts are placed in a self contained stickied megathread that everyone can go to for announcement and information on cheaters. 
    2. EA/DICE wants to give the impression that BFV does not have a cheating problem by containing all the cheating posts in a single thread that is buried with all the other announcement threads that no one reads. 

    The basic truth lies within one of those statements. 

  • Dr_Steamfur
    337 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Carbonic said:
    Oxize said:
    ....Where is the Fairfight protection, never see it active in the chat. Its going to far now. Act now DICE/EA
    Just because the chat is not being spammed with messages that X people have been banned by Fairfight, that doesn't mean Fairfight is not active, it just means it's not spamming the chat about it anymore. We, to my knowledge, don't know why it's not spamming the chat anymore but we can't come to the conclusion that Fairfight it not active because of it.

    Rattoner said:
    Having multiple threads on cheating is not spam, I don't think you know what "spam" is, ESPECIALLY when those new cheat threads are by new players. That is not spam, it is not the definition of spam. Its called feedback, you would do well to listen to the players instead of dismissing them.
    However, what having multiple threads on cheating DOES do is showcases just how terribly bad cheating is in this game. How much of it there actually is. It helps to showcase that cheating is a VERY REAL ISSUE. Of course we are not stupid. We know DICE/EA just wants to pull the rug over the fact cheating exists, to disguise it, to down play it. But every time DICE/EA thinks they are out maneuvering the customer, the customer shakes their head and says "no..I dont think so. You are not playing me for a fool."
    Sure. It however doesn't really matter what it is, the rules specify:
    "Use the search feature to see if there’s already a thread for anything you want to discuss. If there is, use it instead of making a new one. Try to include all your points in a single place."
    It's not a rule that is enforced that often but with some topics the amount of threads become too much, so much it gets hard to use the forum properly, talk gets scattered all over the place and it's hard to find other topics to talk about - in these cases a megathread is made. For consistently popular megathreads, like this one, the megathread is even stickied making it appear in the top of the forum section at all times. That is the opposite of disguising anything - there not being several threads on the same topic does not diminish the topic, especially not with the amount of posts megathreads tend to have.
    You can interpret the lack of response from EA/DICE how you like and that's fair, but the moderators of this forum make megathreads have nothing to do with hiding anything and it's just silly to think so.
    I have to agree, i remember how the f.ex PUBG forum used to look like...and still problably does on STEAM...you could not see ANY other threads than ''cheater this and that''...making it allmost impossible to find and discuss something else.
    Which is an excellent indication that cheating has taken over PUBG (and it has..its really bad there). Makes prospective buyers consider whether or not they should invest their money into purchasing that game or not.....oops, I think I stumbled on the truth.
  • TyroneLoyd_TV
    1743 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited January 22
    Rattoner said:
    Rattoner wrote: »
    (Quote)
    My videos are not even remotely a contraction. I stated I spectate to find aim botters (who are obvious) and wall hackers. Perhaps you do not understand what a wall hacker is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheating_in_online_games

    Watching someone and looking for their patterns to determine if they actively hunt the enemy team in a linear or near linear fashion is indicative of them using wall hacks. 

    As far as my videos. I know 100% for a FACT that you did not watch all of them in their entirety....I have because I recorded them. Not only did I watch them while recording, I have watched them after the fact. The fact that you cant not even read my post in its entirety shows that you are too lazy to watch the videos in their entirety. Your have no point. Your argument failed. Its time to move on Tyrone. 

    When was it a requirement to watch all your videos when I only mentioned a few being inconclusive. You're not making any sense here.
    You stated you only look for wallers. Then now you state you look for both.
    Which is it?

    Secondly if you read my edit a day ago you would of seen I have already read your post. So again what are you talking about?


    The entire argument is how spectator is not an accurate tool to use for aimbotting, softlocks, and other forms of cheating.
    You wont go into detail as how sound is a determining factor to player information, crosshair placement related to sound , map cues etc. You cant always rely on the outline view to be the determining factor. Which my entrie post is about.
    This is what "you" disagreed with along with your tin foil theory of the devs creating cheats.


    Why would not respond to something I'm well versed with and was given such an asinine statement?
    1. You can not determine that my ability to call out cheaters is "inconclusive" when you have not studied the same material I have in depth. This should be obvious.
    2. I never stated I only look for wall hackers. In fact I stated that I don't use the methods you ASSUMED I used. However I did mention (if you go back and read it) that I do look for rage hackers who are obvious with their aim bots. I mostly look for wall hackers because it A. Gives the most advantage to the "sneaky" player, and B. Its the most widely used most likely due to A.
    3. My entire argument of using specator to find wall hackers and aim botters is well founded, documented and it simply works. I have a plethora of aim botting videos showcasing this. As I stated, if you actually watched them all, you would see this. Your argument is based on ignorance of the facts which simply means you have no ground to stand on.
    4. You CAN rely on using outlines to find wall hackers and as I previously mentioned (but of course you failed to read it) I even use this in conjunction with twich to observe their squad to determine if enemies are being called out in comms. If you study the same player in depth (which you have not, and I have) you will see patterns (which I already discussed). Using these tools on a number of maps, when they are in squad and out of squad are excellent indicators that they could be cheating. I then pass this to dice and let dice determine. Sadly though even the most blatant rage hackers live on for months and months.
    5. So far that I can tell, you are not well versed in this argument, not even in the slightest. In fact I would give you a failing grade. 
     -I'll go ahead and get this out of the way because i see you just like assuming things willy nilly. 

    -I am currently a Net Admin and Cyber Security Analyst ish (cant fill every part of this role just yet) for a team on ____ network for ____. I have helped /worked for an anti cheat team(it was only just 1 dev and a couple of gm's/ helpers) several years ago for _____ although not employed by _______ (not the smartest idea for the company but that's a different story). I was given demo tools, screenshot server access, for my knowledge and insight on said subject and eye for catching cheaters in recordings of themselves. This is where my mention of micro adjustments, soft lock aim bots, and sound come into play in those spectator comments. I was also partially  responsible for outing a member on CSGO's CLG team whom unfortunately still plays as hes still a semi talented player(doesn't play for them anymore). He was a player that i have caught in _____ and was promptly banned a couple times on alternative accounts.  The lan cheating scene was a heavy subject in 2015-2018. Still is now but not as prevalent.
    So yes when i say i'm well versed in the subject i mean it.


    Moving on. You stated you "only" look for wall hackers in a previous post. Which is why i made a comment on what you meant by that as your videos which i have watched quite a few of them meaning 7 ( i don't understand why i need to watch all of them because some of them indeed -can- be a legitimate gripes). The inconclusive videos are from players that either don't stream or do but i can hear the audio cues, see enemy tracers in a lot of those situations. Which is why i state that some NOT ALL can be inconclusive. "FEW"


    I never stated you CANT rely on outlines i stated you cant solely rely on it (^ in that type of scenario) because it can give a false sense of security. Remember audio is a key component which i use extremely well in my own game play which 9/10 times i know where the enemy is and pre aim accordingly if i need too. I have played a the semi pro level and have won multiple tournaments so i can understand both perspectives along with prior experience on an anti cheat team. An in depth analysis encompasses , player movement , sound, tracers, micro adjustments, player behavior,  game sense,  cross hair placement. Remember well, even if there is situation that can cause doubt that doesn't make if sufficient evidence for a ban which is dice's problem currently as from the information we have seen they do manual bans also. THIS takes ALOT of time. Reason i know this? I have experienced it.
    So when you say you look for squad callouts that's not what i mean by sound and a few of those videos i can hear the audio cues well.


    Next if your going to dance around like a monkey on the subject about you stating EA's dev team created cheats ill let it go because we can see through your historically dumb comment.


    I'll end it at that.
  • Dr_Steamfur
    337 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Carbonic said:
    Fair enough. I was (wrongly) under the impression that megathreads were stickied like the cheater one. I searched "Megathreads" and all I saw was the cheating one. I searched "TTK" to find a megathread (that you apparently did make) and I did not see one, in fact a LOT of posts that belong in your megathreads are not in them. Kinda defeats the purpose of the search/megathread mechanic. 
  • DancesWthMice
    121 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Rattoner said:
    Rattoner wrote: »
    (Quote)
    My videos are not even remotely a contraction. I stated I spectate to find aim botters (who are obvious) and wall hackers. Perhaps you do not understand what a wall hacker is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheating_in_online_games

    Watching someone and looking for their patterns to determine if they actively hunt the enemy team in a linear or near linear fashion is indicative of them using wall hacks. 

    As far as my videos. I know 100% for a FACT that you did not watch all of them in their entirety....I have because I recorded them. Not only did I watch them while recording, I have watched them after the fact. The fact that you cant not even read my post in its entirety shows that you are too lazy to watch the videos in their entirety. Your have no point. Your argument failed. Its time to move on Tyrone. 

    When was it a requirement to watch all your videos when I only mentioned a few being inconclusive. You're not making any sense here.
    You stated you only look for wallers. Then now you state you look for both.
    Which is it?

    Secondly if you read my edit a day ago you would of seen I have already read your post. So again what are you talking about?


    The entire argument is how spectator is not an accurate tool to use for aimbotting, softlocks, and other forms of cheating.
    You wont go into detail as how sound is a determining factor to player information, crosshair placement related to sound , map cues etc. You cant always rely on the outline view to be the determining factor. Which my entrie post is about.
    This is what "you" disagreed with along with your tin foil theory of the devs creating cheats.


    Why would not respond to something I'm well versed with and was given such an asinine statement?
    1. You can not determine that my ability to call out cheaters is "inconclusive" when you have not studied the same material I have in depth. This should be obvious.
    2. I never stated I only look for wall hackers. In fact I stated that I don't use the methods you ASSUMED I used. However I did mention (if you go back and read it) that I do look for rage hackers who are obvious with their aim bots. I mostly look for wall hackers because it A. Gives the most advantage to the "sneaky" player, and B. Its the most widely used most likely due to A.
    3. My entire argument of using specator to find wall hackers and aim botters is well founded, documented and it simply works. I have a plethora of aim botting videos showcasing this. As I stated, if you actually watched them all, you would see this. Your argument is based on ignorance of the facts which simply means you have no ground to stand on.
    4. You CAN rely on using outlines to find wall hackers and as I previously mentioned (but of course you failed to read it) I even use this in conjunction with twich to observe their squad to determine if enemies are being called out in comms. If you study the same player in depth (which you have not, and I have) you will see patterns (which I already discussed). Using these tools on a number of maps, when they are in squad and out of squad are excellent indicators that they could be cheating. I then pass this to dice and let dice determine. Sadly though even the most blatant rage hackers live on for months and months.
    5. So far that I can tell, you are not well versed in this argument, not even in the slightest. In fact I would give you a failing grade. 
     -I'll go ahead and get this out of the way because i see you just like assuming things willy nilly. 

    -I am currently a Net Admin and Cyber Security Analyst ish (cant fill every part of this role just yet) for a team on ____ network for ____. I have helped /worked for an anti cheat team(it was only just 1 dev and a couple of gm's/ helpers) several years ago for _____ although not employed by _______ (not the smartest idea for the company but that's a different story). I was given demo tools, screenshot server access, for my knowledge and insight on said subject and eye for catching cheaters in recordings of themselves. This is where my mention of micro adjustments, soft lock aim bots, and sound come into play in those spectator comments. I was also partially  responsible for outing a member on CSGO's CLG team whom unfortunately still plays as hes still a semi talented player(doesn't play for them anymore). He was a player that i have caught in _____ and was promptly banned a couple times on alternative accounts.  The lan cheating scene was a heavy subject in 2015-2018. Still is now but not as prevalent.
    So yes when i say i'm well versed in the subject i mean it.


    Moving on. You stated you "only" look for wall hackers in a previous post. Which is why i made a comment on what you meant by that as your videos which i have watched quite a few of them meaning 7 ( i don't understand why i need to watch all of them because some of them indeed -can- be a legitimate gripes). The inconclusive videos are from players that either don't stream or do but i can hear the audio cues, see enemy tracers in a lot of those situations. Which is why i state that some NOT ALL can be inconclusive. "FEW"


    I never stated you CANT rely on outlines i stated you cant solely rely on it (^ in that type of scenario) because it can give a false sense of security. Remember audio is a key component which i use extremely well in my own game play which 9/10 times i know where the enemy is and pre aim accordingly if i need too. I have played a the semi pro level and have won multiple tournaments so i can understand both perspectives along with prior experience on an anti cheat team. An in depth analysis encompasses , player movement , sound, tracers, micro adjustments, player behavior,  game sense,  cross hair placement. Remember well, even if there is situation that can cause doubt that doesn't make if sufficient evidence for a ban which is dice's problem currently as from the information we have seen they do manual bans also. THIS takes ALOT of time. Reason i know this? I have experienced it.
    So when you say you look for squad callouts that's not what i mean by sound and a few of those videos i can hear the audio cues well.


    Next if your going to dance around like a monkey on the subject about you stating EA's dev team created cheats ill let it go because we can see through your historically dumb comment.


    I'll end it at that.
    I sent this fellow a PM awhile ago out of courtesy, rather than blasting him on the forum. Stubborn would be an understatement. His keyboard "Runneth Over".  :)

  • Dr_Steamfur
    337 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Rattoner said:
    Rattoner wrote: »
    (Quote)
    My videos are not even remotely a contraction. I stated I spectate to find aim botters (who are obvious) and wall hackers. Perhaps you do not understand what a wall hacker is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheating_in_online_games

    Watching someone and looking for their patterns to determine if they actively hunt the enemy team in a linear or near linear fashion is indicative of them using wall hacks. 

    As far as my videos. I know 100% for a FACT that you did not watch all of them in their entirety....I have because I recorded them. Not only did I watch them while recording, I have watched them after the fact. The fact that you cant not even read my post in its entirety shows that you are too lazy to watch the videos in their entirety. Your have no point. Your argument failed. Its time to move on Tyrone. 

    When was it a requirement to watch all your videos when I only mentioned a few being inconclusive. You're not making any sense here.
    You stated you only look for wallers. Then now you state you look for both.
    Which is it?

    Secondly if you read my edit a day ago you would of seen I have already read your post. So again what are you talking about?


    The entire argument is how spectator is not an accurate tool to use for aimbotting, softlocks, and other forms of cheating.
    You wont go into detail as how sound is a determining factor to player information, crosshair placement related to sound , map cues etc. You cant always rely on the outline view to be the determining factor. Which my entrie post is about.
    This is what "you" disagreed with along with your tin foil theory of the devs creating cheats.


    Why would not respond to something I'm well versed with and was given such an asinine statement?
    1. You can not determine that my ability to call out cheaters is "inconclusive" when you have not studied the same material I have in depth. This should be obvious.
    2. I never stated I only look for wall hackers. In fact I stated that I don't use the methods you ASSUMED I used. However I did mention (if you go back and read it) that I do look for rage hackers who are obvious with their aim bots. I mostly look for wall hackers because it A. Gives the most advantage to the "sneaky" player, and B. Its the most widely used most likely due to A.
    3. My entire argument of using specator to find wall hackers and aim botters is well founded, documented and it simply works. I have a plethora of aim botting videos showcasing this. As I stated, if you actually watched them all, you would see this. Your argument is based on ignorance of the facts which simply means you have no ground to stand on.
    4. You CAN rely on using outlines to find wall hackers and as I previously mentioned (but of course you failed to read it) I even use this in conjunction with twich to observe their squad to determine if enemies are being called out in comms. If you study the same player in depth (which you have not, and I have) you will see patterns (which I already discussed). Using these tools on a number of maps, when they are in squad and out of squad are excellent indicators that they could be cheating. I then pass this to dice and let dice determine. Sadly though even the most blatant rage hackers live on for months and months.
    5. So far that I can tell, you are not well versed in this argument, not even in the slightest. In fact I would give you a failing grade. 
     -I'll go ahead and get this out of the way because i see you just like assuming things willy nilly. 

    -I am currently a Net Admin and Cyber Security Analyst ish (cant fill every part of this role just yet) for a team on ____ network for ____. I have helped /worked for an anti cheat team(it was only just 1 dev and a couple of gm's/ helpers) several years ago for _____ although not employed by _______ (not the smartest idea for the company but that's a different story). I was given demo tools, screenshot server access, for my knowledge and insight on said subject and eye for catching cheaters in recordings of themselves. This is where my mention of micro adjustments, soft lock aim bots, and sound come into play in those spectator comments. I was also partially  responsible for outing a member on CSGO's CLG team whom unfortunately still plays as hes still a semi talented player(doesn't play for them anymore). He was a player that i have caught in _____ and was promptly banned a couple times on alternative accounts.  The lan cheating scene was a heavy subject in 2015-2018. Still is now but not as prevalent.
    So yes when i say i'm well versed in the subject i mean it.


    Moving on. You stated you "only" look for wall hackers in a previous post. Which is why i made a comment on what you meant by that as your videos which i have watched quite a few of them meaning 7 ( i don't understand why i need to watch all of them because some of them indeed -can- be a legitimate gripes). The inconclusive videos are from players that either don't stream or do but i can hear the audio cues, see enemy tracers in a lot of those situations. Which is why i state that some NOT ALL can be inconclusive. "FEW"


    I never stated you CANT rely on outlines i stated you cant solely rely on it (^ in that type of scenario) because it can give a false sense of security. Remember audio is a key component which i use extremely well in my own game play which 9/10 times i know where the enemy is and pre aim accordingly if i need too. I have played a the semi pro level and have won multiple tournaments so i can understand both perspectives along with prior experience on an anti cheat team. An in depth analysis encompasses , player movement , sound, tracers, micro adjustments, player behavior,  game sense,  cross hair placement. Remember well, even if there is situation that can cause doubt that doesn't make if sufficient evidence for a ban which is dice's problem currently as from the information we have seen they do manual bans also. THIS takes ALOT of time. Reason i know this? I have experienced it.
    So when you say you look for squad callouts that's not what i mean by sound and a few of those videos i can hear the audio cues well.


    Next if your going to dance around like a monkey on the subject about you stating EA's dev team created cheats ill let it go because we can see through your historically dumb comment.


    I'll end it at that.
    1. Good to know. 

    2. My statement of "only look for wall hackers" is based on the fact that I can not rely on all the data I observe (as you also pointed out). I get 1 framed probably ever 5 minutes I play the game, even by slow guns at long range. I know those observations are net related and not reliable. I DO look for rage hackers, but I mean its not something you really have to study they are obvious to anyone watching the video. I consider those as a "given" so I dont study in depth with those players. Also, some of the videos where I claim wall hacking was made while the person was streaming and in some cases listening to music, like you do. So the argument of "hearing footsteps" goes out the window in those cases. 

    3. And yet you play the game while listening and singing to music?  I am 49. I have owned $70,000+ audio systems. I have been actively studying and listening to music since I was 12. I purchase my first hi-fi set (not best buy junk) when I was 19. I have extremely keen ears and can easily detect phase issues in recordings at certain frequencies. I am trained to "listen". So all of that being said, there is no way in hell someone can tell their audio ques regardless of the headphone used, headphone amp used etc AND listen to music at the same time. Due to the dynamic range of audio recordings and the random nature of listening to a song/piece while also trying to listen for footsteps is not reliable in the least. Listening to music CAN and WILL mask footsteps. Even at the lowest volumes due to recording variations and dynamic range, its simply not a reliable argument (if that argument were to be made). 

    NOW, that being said. This is why I watch twitch and spectate at the same time. Did I already explain that I "bait" cheaters? Going into obscure pointless areas early on before enemies can even detect me, sitting down and doing absolutely nothing and seeing if some random runs into the room flanking me with a head shot? It happens all too often and in every case they are leading the scoreboard with mass kills and no deaths. How they even have the time to run around the map aimlessly looking for some random camper is....well I know what it is, its cheating using wall hacks. Another good bait is to call them out, and  then go hide...see if you get "hunted" by them for revenge. Sadly DICE (imo) is too forgiving on what might be considered a cheat. I'd rather see a pro get false flagged then watch my game burn because of a cheating epidemic. 

    4. On the matter of Dice selling cheats. My point (if you go through ALL my commentary) is that it is a debatable subject. I have even stated prior to our conversation that I do not think that it is the case EA/DICE are creating cheats. But I will also not rule it out until we get a more definitive answer as to why EA/DICE has allowed this cheating epidemic (which HAS completely ruined the game for over a year now) to exist.  Again, let me state. My position is NOT whether they ARE, or ARE NOT. My position is that WE DO NOT KNOW FOR A FACT either way, and we dont. We can assume, we can guess, we can pretend but we dont "KNOW". That is and always has been my point. Lastly. I was not even the one who suggested they were, I just thought it was a good topic for debate. Maybe it will light a fire under their _ _ _ and we will see real progress into making this game live up to industry standards in regards to cheating. 


This discussion has been closed.