No anticheat in new patch-Im out

Comments

  • Rev0verDrive
    6762 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    @Mikhailovitch
    1. Any idea of just how much beta testing that they've done to a change like that to (what amounts to) out-of-region hit-detection? My understanding is that, historically speaking, the combination of OOR pings and server-side detection almost invariably led to even more serious lag problems for those players.

    Testing ...Loads of testing. The changes are on the CTE servers. Although those are all PC. In the end there may indeed be two variations of the changes. One that is in sync with PC tick and its direct route to server, and one for console tick and it's parent network (psn, Live). My understanding of console is that the data has to travel from client to the network (Psn/Live) and then to the server.

    Historically, yes high pingers got the shorter end of the stick. The general experience was so bad for the high pinger that they simple didn't play on those servers. Yet, Server-side detection does not increase lag. Your client already sends "supposed" hits to the server for arbitration. They just aren't as scrutinized as much as what the new setup does. Plus the buffer has changed. You maybe thinking about peer-to-peer lockstep.

    To clarify, server-side detection does not increase lag/latency. It does/can increase bandwidth consumption though. Bearing in mind you only need a "broadband" setup of 1 up and 1 down to play (actually it's closer to 256Kb up/down). Send and receive rates simply dictate the amount of data you can send/receive at any given point. With a 200Mb down (which I have) I can stream movies/music, download large files, multiple files etc while playing and have zero issues. Think of it as small pipe vs big pipe.

    200Mb down means you can download up to 200Mb/s, it does not mean your data travels 200x faster than a 1Mb connection. Broadband is broadband. Broadband data typically (unhindered) travels 62 miles per ms. The route it takes to get from A to B stipulates the travel distance, thus ping.
    2. Further, it's also been my understanding that the basic reason that EA/ Dice has never put into place the sensible option of region-locking the servers -- i.e. if you are playing from Hong Kong you do not get access to US servers -- is that EA is afraid that they will lose market share as those far overseas players become frustrated by their lack of access to many of the more popular western servers.

    Region locking simply won't work.
    One, You can manually change your region to whatever you want.
    And Two there's VPN/Proxy. The cost to prevent region hopping in that aspect is too high. Internal ping capping (clamping) has been discussed. The problem is it would exclude MP access to a large part of the market. The player base would be really small. It is possible for the rsp to offer ping limiting in the future. But the next update should really limit the need for it.

    Just imagine how many players would be excluded with a ping clamp of 100ms.
    3. So, and as much as it would make sense from a relatively localized gaming standpoint -- mandatory server-side detection for high pingers would do a heck of a lot in straightening out our currently hybridized detection system -- is EA really serious about putting in what amounts to an even more severe lag penalty for far overseas players? Or, alternatively, have they come up with and fully tested some incredibly clever way of running a server-side system that does not severely lag out those OOR players when they join in on a western server?

    They're serious and there's isn't some weird approach/technique to it.

    Here's a few quotes from the DEV.
    The next patch will lower the FHT for soldiers from 125ms to 100ms and above 100ms, server side hit detection is performed for High pingers which is way more powerful than clamping the frame history. With this recent patch i changed the server side arbitration so that hits on your client on extrapolated soldiers will still count unless you are a high pinger.

    To clarify:
    Soldier FHT is lowered to 0.01 from 0.0125. Latency higher than 100ms results in all hits to be handled strictly by the server. Latency lower than 100ms is handled the normal way...client detect, server authenticate.
    Basically we have client side hit detection and server side arbitration.

    So simplified: the server simulates a given bullet at the same time the client simulated a given bullet resulting in a certain damage hit. That very time is clamped. So a high pinger shooting at 150ms latency, gets its bullet simulated at clamped 100ms on the server. That means the world was already 50ms further ahead in terms of time, than the bullet was simulated with at the high pingers client. However, the server does a very coarse arbitration test which will see the clamping of FHT almost to no effect up until 300ms latency.

    To counter this, i implemented full server side accurate hit detection for anything beyond 100ms. So instead of running client side hit detection, they run server side hit detection with whatever is currently the state of the world on the server. So they have to extrapolate in their head and lead the shot. That also eliminates shooting around corners as the shot will be blocked. It does not fully switch from 100ms to 0 latency and rather interpolate softly, but it should be a major milestone and discourage players over 100ms to deliberately play OOR.

    Additionally on top of this he states later that: in the situation where the high pingers data is dropped (packet loss) consecutively due to a bad connection; the server inputs "dummy" data.

    e.g.
    If the server hasn't received inputs from Player X over the course of N ticks. The server inputs "dummy" data. This dummy data is then used/considered as "authentic" data for subsequent calculations etc.

    If you want a more technical walk through you can either DM me or check this post.
    https://forums.battlefield.com/en-us/discussion/comment/737581/#Comment_737581

    Loads of technical insight from that point forward.

  • Mikhailovitch
    364 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    1. My assumption of high pings due to OOR status leading to a greater degree of subjective lag were based upon my own experiences of playing on such OOR servers while (and for those of you that played the old-school Half-Life mods) setting my ex_interp 0, experiences which rather graphically illustrated the rather huge disparity between what my monitor was showing and what the game server was thinking I should see.
    2. Iow, it was never simply a matter of OOR, but rather that the OOR status almost invariably came along with a (sometimes ridiculous) level of ping, resulting in a much more significant level of server vs. client disparity.
    3. I'm just guessing here, but I imagine that this phenomena was what caused the rather infamous problems with OOR players in BF4, where the hybridized hit-detection of the servers + clients were causing a big mismatch.
    4. Which leads me to question why, exactly, Dice chose to run with a hybridized system for BF4; if simply setting all 100+ pings to a scalable yet complete level of server-side arbitration has already been thoroughly tested and found to solve the OOR problem, why did they not use it for BF4? Was the solution, perhaps, something that simply that fell by the wayside on their rush to get the game out in time to meet the latest gen consoles?
    5. Further, yeah, you can manually set the region for a game, but it's my understanding that the commonly advertised VPN solution for getting around ping-limiters -- aka ersatz OOR blocks -- is not nearly as effective as what VPNs claim.
    http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-2576509/reduce-latency-ping-vpn-game-servers-location.html
    6. Is the above info wrong in re VPNs?
    7. Bringing this sojourn back to the thread as a whole, exactly how would this server-side hit-detection relate as to running an anti-cheat? I may be completely off-base, here, but if a 100+ ping puts a player straight into the server-side hit-detection basket, then it seems to me that running a server-side AC on such players would be relatively simple for, at a minimum, cutting down on the efficacy of aimbots.
    8. And simple means that Dice might actually trouble themselves to implement such a measure.
  • kL-SnAjP
    497 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    it saddens me that we even have to talk/be bothered by 100 and 100+ ms pings
    due to EA/DICEs decision to provide servers only from the few data centers around the globe, we are back in the analog age
    i cant imagine we would agree to play scrim in bf3 on 80+ ping server. Yet with dices tweaks its pretty common ping across the score board in bf1.

    I seriously hope they come back to theyr senses in BF2.5 and if not for public server files, than lets hope atleast major local server providers comes back into play.
    If not, well it could be a reason to skip first Battlefield ever

  • Rev0verDrive
    6762 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    1. My assumption of high pings due to OOR status leading to a greater degree of subjective lag were based upon my own experiences of playing on such OOR servers while (and for those of you that played the old-school Half-Life mods) setting my ex_interp 0, experiences which rather graphically illustrated the rather huge disparity between what my monitor was showing and what the game server was thinking I should see.

    ex_interp is Interpolation. The higher you set it (0.1), the smoother the frames, yet the more inaccurate the actual position. Lower (0.01) the more accurate, yet glitchier/warpier it is.
    2. Iow, it was never simply a matter of OOR, but rather that the OOR status almost invariably came along with a (sometimes ridiculous) level of ping, resulting in a much more significant level of server vs. client disparity.

    3. I'm just guessing here, but I imagine that this phenomena was what caused the rather infamous problems with OOR players in BF4, where the hybridized hit-detection of the servers + clients were causing a big mismatch.

    OOR exacerbated the issue. I'm in the North American region which includes Canada and Mexico. East coast to be more specific. Everything on the west coast results in a terrible ping imo (80 - 120+). Proving the point you don't need to be OOR to have a garbage ping or high packet loss.

    The move to provide the same exact game to all platforms was a big factor. Expanding the player market to other regions was another.
    4. Which leads me to question why, exactly, Dice chose to run with a hybridized system for BF4; if simply setting all 100+ pings to a scalable yet complete level of server-side arbitration has already been thoroughly tested and found to solve the OOR problem, why did they not use it for BF4? Was the solution, perhaps, something that simply that fell by the wayside on their rush to get the game out in time to meet the latest gen consoles?

    TBH the hybrid was in BC2 and BF3 as well. On paper vs reality and player outrage are the two driving forces I'm seeing. Hybrid is great and works well when everybody has a low ping. Or one that can stay within a 2-3 tick cycle. Beyond that it starts to become unfair to those with a good connection.
    5. Further, yeah, you can manually set the region for a game, but it's my understanding that the commonly advertised VPN solution for getting around ping-limiters -- aka ersatz OOR blocks -- is not nearly as effective as what VPNs claim.
    http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-2576509/reduce-latency-ping-vpn-game-servers-location.html

    6. Is the above info wrong in re VPNs?

    I didn't check the link, but I'm almost positive it's referring to a VPN reducing a ping based on an optimum route. Technically it can, given it has a lot of control over the data route. Ping is based on the time it takes to get from A to B and back. So if you could change your data's route to the most efficient, you could in fact lower ping.

    In practice it doesn't work as efficiently as the websites claim they do. You may drop a few ms here and there, server to server. But nothing substantial.
    7. Bringing this sojourn back to the thread as a whole, exactly how would this server-side hit-detection relate as to running an anti-cheat? I may be completely off-base, here, but if a 100+ ping puts a player straight into the server-side hit-detection basket, then it seems to me that running a server-side AC on such players would be relatively simple for, at a minimum, cutting down on the efficacy of aimbots.

    Multiplayer games have a series of checks that the server does on player input. How many checks and how in depth those checks are, are determined by several factors. Resource overhead being one of the biggest that I can think of. Some of the algos used to determine a valid hit can be quite hefty in resource requirements. To do them all and for 64 players in a timely manner, requires a lot of resources.

    Do I increase RSP costs to handle to the new resource load? Which will obviously lower RSP sales ... Which increase our costs to fill the server void?

    Bottom line, you could theoretically scrutinize more with pure server-side hit detection. Especially if it's a smaller pool. Lower number of high pingers on the server equates to a lower load, thus more freely available resources. etc and so forth. BUT, all those players in the pool are already suffering from high latency. How much time do I need to run these extra checks? You don't want to artificially increase the latency. BUT, then again all of that could've already been accounted for. Without access to internal metrics all i can do is hypothesize.
    8. And simple means that Dice might actually trouble themselves to implement such a measure.

    None of it is simple. I theorize code in my head all the time. "Oh that's elegant, effective...and simple." Yet, when hooking it in with all the other chunks of code it becomes quite tedious. X cant effect Y, This must be written to mem before That. You end up rewriting large chunks of an existing class() to accommodate a new function().

    I'm absolutely positive that quite a bit had to be re-written for the new changes that are coming.
  • Mikhailovitch
    364 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    1. For most of the old-school Half-Life mod players ex_interp was probably our favorite variable to fiddle with, as it allowed us to manually set the best balance between the smoothness of gameplay and actual positioning; you'd start at ex-interp 0 and gradually work the number up until the gameplay became tolerably smooth while optimizing your perceived hit-registry -- and the one thing that *really* stood out in this process was when you had a really high ping, say 200+, and first set that interpolation to 0... at which point it became painfully clear that what you were seeing with interp fully engaged was drastically at odds with what the server thought of as your real positioning.
    2. Sure, you can have a bad ping within the same region -- west to east coast being the obvious example -- but you only tend to get the really awful pings when you are going the full monty and crossing regions; LA to New York might be bad, but unless you've gotten stuck with a truly screwy network routing and/ or an ISP that is being run by a pack of rabid monkeys, within region your effective ping times and packet control will rarely be as surreal as, say, Hong Kong to Chicago.
    3. Yep, that's pretty much my understanding of hybrid as well -- great for the same ping cohort, not so much when you try and mix more localized players with the guys from outer Mongolia.
    4. Which led to my next question: if server-side detection can be set to gradually kick in on the really high-pingers and significantly solve the above dilemma, why didn't they just use this method for past games? I'm assuming that it's just a solution that took time and experience to come up with, but it's more than possible that I may be missing something.
  • rothbardian253
    202 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Netranger9 wrote: »
    IMO dice/ea has had more than enough time to implement a system that stops these subhuman rockcrawlers being able to cheat.They have failed miserably.I said I was out if no anticheat was implemented in the next patch,as it has not been done,Im uninstalling this game and never buying anything from the bf series again.Later peeps.

    This guy is a liar. If you check his stats you can see he played within the last two hours.
  • Rev0verDrive
    6762 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    @Mikhailovitch
    Source based interpolation now is done via a formula. (cl_interp_ratio / cl_updaterate = interpolation rate) The standard default is 0.015625.

    To really explain the "mismatch" I'd have to severely hijack this thread. Shoot me a PM and I'll be happy to run through it.
  • Netranger9
    230 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Netranger9 wrote: »
    IMO dice/ea has had more than enough time to implement a system that stops these subhuman rockcrawlers being able to cheat.They have failed miserably.I said I was out if no anticheat was implemented in the next patch,as it has not been done,Im uninstalling this game and never buying anything from the bf series again.Later peeps.

    This guy is a liar. If you check his stats you can see he played within the last two hours.

    No,if you bothered to read what I wrote,I said that I CHANGED MY MIND and am going to continue to play until I reach rank 100.At that instant,I AM OUT.So please try reading before the verbal diarrhea starts flowing.
  • Gigabyte9
    169 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Netranger9 wrote: »
    Netranger9 wrote: »
    IMO dice/ea has had more than enough time to implement a system that stops these subhuman rockcrawlers being able to cheat.They have failed miserably.I said I was out if no anticheat was implemented in the next patch,as it has not been done,Im uninstalling this game and never buying anything from the bf series again.Later peeps.

    This guy is a liar. If you check his stats you can see he played within the last two hours.

    No,if you bothered to read what I wrote,I said that I CHANGED MY MIND and am going to continue to play until I reach rank 100.At that instant,I AM OUT.So please try reading before the verbal diarrhea starts flowing.

    Then you will change your mind again.
  • Maestro-FIN
    617 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Idea.. at the end of a game (leaderboard) tick people you played with that you know are trustworthy or enjoyed playing with(not against). Players earn a trust rating and get to play with others with the same trust rating. Only players that have good trust ratings / amount of hours can be allowed to vote on others. or.............every player gets presented 5 random names of other players at the end of game, add the points that way. Only a few sore loosers claim good players to be hackers so that would balance itself out..the real obvious cheaters would get such terrible ratings after few games.

    yay i would be negative infinity as i usually made people salty and hackusate when im piloting and im flying alot.
  • OP_Glitchmobile
    978 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Idea.. at the end of a game (leaderboard) tick people you played with that you know are trustworthy or enjoyed playing with(not against). Players earn a trust rating and get to play with others with the same trust rating. Only players that have good trust ratings / amount of hours can be allowed to vote on others. or.............every player gets presented 5 random names of other players at the end of game, add the points that way. Only a few sore loosers claim good players to be hackers so that would balance itself out..the real obvious cheaters would get such terrible ratings after few games.

    yay i would be negative infinity as i usually made people salty and hackusate when im abusing trenchfighter and im doing it alot.

    102101.jpg
  • Maestro-FIN
    617 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Idea.. at the end of a game (leaderboard) tick people you played with that you know are trustworthy or enjoyed playing with(not against). Players earn a trust rating and get to play with others with the same trust rating. Only players that have good trust ratings / amount of hours can be allowed to vote on others. or.............every player gets presented 5 random names of other players at the end of game, add the points that way. Only a few sore loosers claim good players to be hackers so that would balance itself out..the real obvious cheaters would get such terrible ratings after few games.

    yay i would be negative infinity as i usually made people salty and hackusate when im abusing trenchfighter and im doing it alot.

    102101.jpg

    see, even in forums noobs change my comments
  • DeLtAuk2004
    1107 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Idea.. at the end of a game (leaderboard) tick people you played with that you know are trustworthy or enjoyed playing with(not against). Players earn a trust rating and get to play with others with the same trust rating. Only players that have good trust ratings / amount of hours can be allowed to vote on others. or.............every player gets presented 5 random names of other players at the end of game, add the points that way. Only a few sore loosers claim good players to be hackers so that would balance itself out..the real obvious cheaters would get such terrible ratings after few games.

    yay i would be negative infinity as i usually made people salty and hackusate when im abusing trenchfighter and im doing it alot.

    102101.jpg

    see, even in forums noobs change my comments

    Using kid chat ie salt , salty and so on will get you flamed and deservedly so.
  • OP_Glitchmobile
    978 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Getting hackusated, causes so much troubles and ruin some peoples games so bad(i'm sure it even makes their game lag)...they come here to cry about it....and tell everybody who doesn't stack teams etc, they are bad and noobs.
    It's getting old.

    Normal people would take it as a compliment and move on, but some are so entitled, even getting accused of cheating by some random noob hurts their ego in some twisted way.
    If you are NOT cheating, what's the problem.....
    I usually just laugh it off..
  • Calledshot
    7 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    The hackusation argument is absolutely BS. It's a chicken vs. egg. Why are there hackusations? Because there are ALOT of available hacks and a poor anti-hack system implemented! If hacks were hard to come by, the hackusation argument would be completely valid. So peeps who are bummed about hackusations, think of the reasons behind it. It's not if you are actually cheating or not, it's that cheats are so easily accessible people assume you are using them. Who's fault is that?
  • Micas99
    816 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Calledshot wrote: »
    The hackusation argument is absolutely BS. It's a chicken vs. egg. Why are there hackusations? Because there are ALOT of available hacks and a poor anti-hack system implemented! If hacks were hard to come by, the hackusation argument would be completely valid. So peeps who are bummed about hackusations, think of the reasons behind it. It's not if you are actually cheating or not, it's that cheats are so easily accessible people assume you are using them. Who's fault is that?

    That make so much sense that heads will esplode. Seriously.. hackusations are a problem rather than a compliment? Really? Hacksuations are directly proportional to the actual amount of real cheating that goes on in the game.. so Dice ignoring the cheating is the direct cause of "false" hackusations that some people are so upset about.

    And for those that slapped around the guy who said he was quitting when he actually didn't.. my last game was over a month ago.. quit due to the cheating, and very happy I did. The game was just frustrating when gaming is supposed to be fun. I check the forums every so often to see if Dice implemented an effective client side AC, see that they didn't, then resume my not playing this game.
  • Mikhailovitch
    364 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Calledshot wrote: »
    The hackusation argument is absolutely BS. It's a chicken vs. egg. Why are there hackusations? Because there are ALOT of available hacks and a poor anti-hack system implemented! If hacks were hard to come by, the hackusation argument would be completely valid. So peeps who are bummed about hackusations, think of the reasons behind it. It's not if you are actually cheating or not, it's that cheats are so easily accessible people assume you are using them. Who's fault is that?

    Don't forget the other reason that the hackusations are flying around so much these days: having learned that FF is much more bark than bite, a number of hackers have started cheating WAY more visibly and blatently than they have in the past, thus raising the overall player awareness level of cheating in general. I mean, in past Field games *cough* like BF3 we still had a boatload of hacks, but due to a strong admin presence the cheaters had very good reasons to stay in the closet. These days, not so much.
  • Iamaforkead
    483 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Good to see nothing has changed around here.

    The same folks still desperately pleading for a new anti-cheat solution that will never eventuate. LOL just let it go already, it's not happening.

    FAIRFIGHT WORKS. delete halve the posts.
    Save the pixels and energy for gaming.
  • STOPchris
    592 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    At least if you are out, don't give EA and DICE your money again. Don't be one of those whiners that continues to throw money at a company that produces garbage.
  • Mikhailovitch
    364 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    At least if you are out, don't give EA and DICE your money again. Don't be one of those whiners that continues to throw money at a company that produces garbage.

    1. Well, this time around I at least avoided the idiocy of pre-ordering.... but once the game was out and I got some solid intel on the stability of the game -- which was rather good for a BF release, tbh -- I bought the whole package. Which decision, and wholly due to my own stupidity in neglecting to check the fine print where it said No Anti-Cheat Included, was in hindsight not exactly the kind of thing that earns you brownie points in the great IQ test of life.
    2. What really gets me is that I *thought* that it was the job of the big Youtubers to give us all a heads-up when a sneaky land-mine like this one was laying in the gameplay road, but I guess not. Not sure why those guys fell down on the job -- and for a lot of the bigger Tubers that's exactly what their reviews are: a full-time job -- but c'est la vie, I suppose.
Sign In or Register to comment.