No anticheat in new patch-Im out

Comments

  • Denisa_Rowen
    311 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    edited April 2017
    post removed due to all caps
    
    Post edited by LOLGotYerTags on
  • Gigabyte9
    169 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    edited April 2017
    post removed due to all caps
    

    Interestingly, since Dice confirmed the false positive bans there has been no one claiming they were falsely banned either on here or the BF1 subreddit. It was a pretty common sight beforehand.

    If you think there is an army of cheaters scanning forums to "move the discussion" then I'm sorry to tell you that this isn't the case.
    Post edited by LOLGotYerTags on
  • FierceBrosnan007
    1043 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited April 2017
    smoogelz wrote: »
    post removed due to all caps
    

    Interestingly, since Dice confirmed the false positive bans there has been no one claiming they were falsely banned either on here or the BF1 subreddit. It was a pretty common sight beforehand.

    If you think there is an army of cheaters scanning forums to "move the discussion" then I'm sorry to tell you that this isn't the case.

    The number of downloads for at least 3 undetected cheats, not to mention discussion activity elsewhere on the subject proves that you are in fact mis-informed..

    If there was a name and shame rule coupled with a proper clientside ac, i'm willing to bet you would see quite a few from here on the list!

    The only people denying a real problem with cheaters in BF1 are those who use cheats themselves, who have been extremely lucky not to encounter as many as other have done or those who are simply blind as a bat!

    The facts prove BF1 has a cheating problem.. several cheats remain undetected... no clientside ac to catch them as in previous BF games. Whoever made this decision during development should be sacked. Plain and simple.

    I went top in numerous rounds, the odd 38 kd round, got hackusated, had best squad player etc etc.. all this is irrelevant. BF1 is infested with wallhacks, damage mods and bots to name a few. Even I stopped playing weeks ago. It's a joke that they haven't implemented a clientside ac by now...
    Post edited by LOLGotYerTags on
  • Gigabyte9
    169 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    edited April 2017

    The number of downloads for at least 3 undetected cheats, not to mention discussion activity elsewhere on the subject proves that you are in fact mis-informed..

    I can assure you that I am not misinformed. That has nothing to do with my post.

    If there was a name and shame rule coupled with a proper clientside ac, i'm willing to bet you would see quite a few from here on the list!

    Probably, but there is not an army of cheaters posting on forums. If you truly think that there are many cheaters browsing the forums just to post on cheater threads then you are the one who is misinformed. Most don't care about a thread like this which will ultimately achieve nothing and they have nothing to gain. Most cheaters just download or buy a cheat to use, not engage in threads like this. Unlike the common myth, the majority of cheat providers do not actively encourage people to post on forums and even if they did, most will simply not bother.
    The only people denying a real problem with cheaters in BF1 are those who use cheats themselves, who have been extremely lucky not to encounter as many as other have done or those who are simply blind as a bat!

    I, and most others, do not doubt that there are more cheaters than usual however, I do believe that people exaggerate it. It is greatly exaggerated by "bad" players or those who don't acknowledge just how buggy, laggy etc Battlefield is. People throw around accusations to anyone who looks even remotely suspicious.
    The facts prove BF1 has a cheating problem.. several cheats remain undetected... no clientside ac to catch them as in previous BF games. Whoever made this decision during development should be sacked. Plain and simple.

    You do not know the reasons why there is no client side anticheat and it humors me that people on these forums believe they know more about this issue than Dice themselves.

    There could be no client anticheat because:

    1) The cost
    2) The resources required. A client side anticheat is resource intensive. What about those running older i5s with 100% CPU usage? The performance could significantly worsen if a new anticheat was implemented.
    3) The time and man resources to implement it into the game.

    There could be many other reasons that Dice decided not to implement one.

    Battlefield 4 had a client side anticheat yet people complained about cheating just like they are now.

    I went top in numerous rounds, the odd 38 kd round, got hackusated, had best squad player etc etc.. all this is irrelevant. BF1 is infested with wallhacks, damage mods and bots to name a few. Even I stopped playing weeks ago. It's a joke that they haven't implemented a clientside ac by now...

    As you said, that's irrelevant.

    Is cheating more common than some other games? Yes. Is it so bad that you have to quit the game? No.

    Plus, a new anticheat wont simply cure the hacking problem. There will still be many cheaters and the same people will be on these forums complaining that Dice must do more. Implementing an new anticheat is nowhere near as easy as just purchasing the license and running an installer...
  • FierceBrosnan007
    1043 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    smoogelz wrote: »

    The number of downloads for at least 3 undetected cheats, not to mention discussion activity elsewhere on the subject proves that you are in fact mis-informed..

    I can assure you that I am not misinformed. That has nothing to do with my post.

    If there was a name and shame rule coupled with a proper clientside ac, i'm willing to bet you would see quite a few from here on the list!

    Probably, but there is not an army of cheaters posting on forums. If you truly think that there are many cheaters browsing the forums just to post on cheater threads then you are the one who is misinformed. Most don't care about a thread like this which will ultimately achieve nothing and they have nothing to gain. Most cheaters just download or buy a cheat to use, not engage in threads like this. Unlike the common myth, the majority of cheat providers do not actively encourage people to post on forums and even if they did, most will simply not bother.
    The only people denying a real problem with cheaters in BF1 are those who use cheats themselves, who have been extremely lucky not to encounter as many as other have done or those who are simply blind as a bat!

    I, and most others, do not doubt that there are more cheaters than usual however, I do believe that people exaggerate it. It is greatly exaggerated by "bad" players or those who don't acknowledge just how buggy, laggy etc Battlefield is. People throw around accusations to anyone who looks even remotely suspicious.
    The facts prove BF1 has a cheating problem.. several cheats remain undetected... no clientside ac to catch them as in previous BF games. Whoever made this decision during development should be sacked. Plain and simple.

    You do not know the reasons why there is no client side anticheat and it humors me that people on these forums believe they know more about this issue than Dice themselves.

    There could be no client anticheat because:

    1) The cost
    2) The resources required. A client side anticheat is resource intensive. What about those running older i5s with 100% CPU usage? The performance could significantly worsen if a new anticheat was implemented.
    3) The time and man resources to implement it into the game.

    There could be many other reasons that Dice decided not to implement one.

    Battlefield 4 had a client side anticheat yet people complained about cheating just like they are now.

    I went top in numerous rounds, the odd 38 kd round, got hackusated, had best squad player etc etc.. all this is irrelevant. BF1 is infested with wallhacks, damage mods and bots to name a few. Even I stopped playing weeks ago. It's a joke that they haven't implemented a clientside ac by now...

    As you said, that's irrelevant.

    Is cheating more common than some other games? Yes. Is it so bad that you have to quit the game? No.

    Plus, a new anticheat wont simply cure the hacking problem. There will still be many cheaters and the same people will be on these forums complaining that Dice must do more. Implementing an new anticheat is nowhere near as easy as just purchasing the license and running an installer...

    This is EA we're talking about.. I don't believe for one second that they can't budget in a half decent clientside anticheat. It should have been in the game from scratch imho.

    And lastly and sadly.. in my experience so far, yes there are enough/too many/more than all previous BF games ..which has put me off playing for several weeks now. I could top rounds but there was still a lot more strange stuff/super heros running around untouchable.

    No lag here. Zero game or connection issues. Ping in games were very low. Sub 30, usually sub 20 on most servers with over 100fps. Dx12 gpu 99% cpu 63%.. The game plays very well.. it's the lack of a clientside ac to detect the extra cheaters has put me off. I've been gaming since the 90's and know when something is off. BF1 has too many cheaters compared with the last versions. The lack of multiple admin slots plus 3rd party plugins doesn't aid the issue either. No battle reports/player history etc..

  • Gigabyte9
    169 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    edited April 2017

    This is EA we're talking about.. I don't believe for one second that they can't budget in a half decent clientside anticheat. It should have been in the game from scratch imho.

    And lastly and sadly.. in my experience so far, yes there are enough/too many/more than all previous BF games ..which has put me off playing for several weeks now. I could top rounds but there was still a lot more strange stuff/super heros running around untouchable.

    No lag here. Zero game or connection issues. Ping in games were very low. Sub 30, usually sub 20 on most servers with over 100fps. Dx12 gpu 99% cpu 63%.. The game plays very well.. it's the lack of a clientside ac to detect the extra cheaters has put me off. I've been gaming since the 90's and know when something is off. BF1 has too many cheaters compared with the last versions. The lack of multiple admin slots plus 3rd party plugins doesn't aid the issue either. No battle reports/player history etc..

    Rubberbanding and similar is common in BF. Maybe you don't have connection issues, but chances are some of the other 63 players will which can ultimately lead to the occasional fishy kill which people wrongly brand as a cheater without any reliable evidence. The game is also riddled with bugs which again, people can wrongly mistake for cheating.

    As for the CPU usage, it really depends what model you have. BF1 is a very CPU intensive game and throwing an anticheat into the mix would really impact performance for a lot of players. There are some i5 users with 100% CPU usage. We of course don't know why a client side anticheat is not included, but I'm pretty confident this is one of the reasons.

    I'm also confident that Dice will not put an client anticheat in this game now. It is a complex, expensive and time consuming task. It will impact performance, potentially cause issues and waste many hours integrating and testing it. Dice/EA will look at the cost/benefit and decide that it's not worth putting in a new anticheat now. There is little incentive to do so as their primary source of income is from game/premium purchases rather than them (lame) battlepacks.

    As we have seen in previous Battlefields, they are easy to develop hacks for. An anticheat does not magically cure the hacking problem. You could have the best anticheat in the world but if the actual game is not developed with appropriate sanity checks or hardened as much as possible against tampering then they can easily be created and used. If an anticheat was introduced tomorrow, the paid providers will adapt and there will still be hobbyist hack developers releasing free hacks.

    The best thing Dice can do now is improve the Fairfight policies, review the ban policies, give custom servers more control, continue to harden the game client and continue to fix the game. I still feel that the hacking problem is exaggerated, though can understand that there is more than 'normal'. The game is not completely overrun with them, like so many people on these forums suggest.
  • LOLGotYerTags
    14782 postsMember, Moderator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Moderator
    @Denisa_Rowen
    Do not post in all caps.
    
    
  • Micas99
    816 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    smoogelz wrote: »
    The best thing Dice can do now is improve the Fairfight policies, review the ban policies, give custom servers more control, continue to harden the game client and continue to fix the game. I still feel that the hacking problem is exaggerated, though can understand that there is more than 'normal'. The game is not completely overrun with them, like so many people on these forums suggest.

    The incidence of cheating is irrelevant, isn't it? It's like every third post in this thread is "there's not as much cheating as people say" as if that has anything to do with.. well, anything. It's impossible for any of us to know regardless, so speculation is just useless.

    The whole point is that there is zero client side AC in BF1 and a lot of people would like there to be. Many of us would like EA/Dice to take cheating as seriously as Blizzard does. The game could have zero total cheaters in it, and we'd still much prefer there be an effective AC in the game (no, FF doesn't count).

    So no.. the 'best thing Dice can do now' is not as you describe. The best thing Dice can do is what Blizzard does. The best thing the rest of us who are bothered by Dice's lack of interest in PC shooters can do is simply to not buy their games anymore. Dice may or may not care about that, but all of us PC shooter veterans have been put on notice that Dice just doesn't give a damn.
  • Confucius_o_
    1870 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    1. It's painfully obvious that BF1 was released in a state that was far from optimized in terms of both CPU and memory usage; for months now an awful lot of guys that are running even top-shelf hardware have been vociferously complaining about the now infamous CPU logjam/ frame-dropping issues.
    2. Taking a gander at my own setup, last night I checked on my QTWebEngineProcess.exe and that nasty little monster was eating 1.8gb of RAM while my machine was sitting idle; as in, Origin was not even open, the game was turned off, and yet that horrible memory hole was still eating a giant-sized bite out of my rig.
    3. So, yes, the introduction/ adaptation of a good AC might very well have pushed BF1 over the cliff's edge when it comes to processing loads -- but I have to point out that this is only true because Dice released the game with some rather painfully awful optimization issues.
    4. Which brings me back to an earlier point: if Dice knew about these issues -- the processing imbroglio + the incompatibility of a good AC with the game's current setup -- then they should have simply pushed back the release date and tinkered up a reasonable solution before the actual commercial drop of the game. Unlike BF4, EA was under no particular marketing gun regarding as to exactly when they released the game, and so they could have easily spent a few extra months getting the game into a reasonable state of repair by drop time.
    5. Anything less and they willingly sold us a pig in a poke. Which, in point of fact, is exactly the choice that they ultimately opted for.
    6. And, yes, at this point it's very unlikely that Dice will introduce a solid AC to the game. Given this lack, the admins -- what few there are left after the concurrently disastrous rollout of the RSP -- are in no position to do a real job of vetting their servers. No AC means that the poor admins wind up getting swamped by sheer weight of numbers, and are in no shape to spend the amount of spectating time that it would take to weed out the hacks.
    7. Yep, paid hacks have always been a problem -- have been from the very first days of fps gaming -- but they are relatively few in number. The real problem is the amateur or, as you put it, the hobbyist cheat developers, who by virtue of their amateur status can afford to give out free hacks in mass numbers.
    8. Which, and to judge by the various hacking forums, is exactly what they did; tens of thousands of free hack downloads, and this in a game that had only a few hundred thousand PC players to begin with. Iow, a relatively large proportion of the player base has already downloaded and (presumably) are using cheats.
    9. None of the above is speculative; if you don't believe me, just fire up the ole' google and start reading the horrible numbers for yourself on the various hacking forums. The lack of an active AC means that the sleazier players can afford to use the free cheats, as they are unlikely to get pegged for using even such static and non-professional programs as are (sadly) now commonly available.
    10. Which, and when you get right down to brass tacks, is ultimately the purpose behind having an AC as part of the gaming regime: it weeds out the low-hanging fruit of amateur hacks, largely restricts the use of cheats to the much smaller fraction of players that are willing to front hard cash every month to access their grab-bag of ugliness, and buys admins the time that they need to wage their subtle spectating war against the professionally sponsored hackers.

    Stopped reading at point 3.

    Made assumption that poster is decent and clued up enough to not have to read any more as it will all FALL ON DEAF EARS ANYWAY.

    OMG CAPS with DEAF EARS!!!!

    :smiley:



  • OP_Glitchmobile
    978 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    The people behind the idea of Fairfight only....should get tossed in a cell and have this playing 24\7:

  • Confucius_o_
    1870 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    The people behind the idea of Fairfight only....should get tossed in a cell and have this playing 24\7:


    That's in my head for...EVAH!!!
  • produc3
    194 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited April 2017
    I think it's partly the hacking problem, but I also think it's in large ways tied to the indiscernible/ambiguous but very very very present skill gaps in this game's playerbase.

    I do think both sides have a point, those decrying hackers being everywhere aren't entirely off. I don't notice when I play domination but when I play conquest quite often see highly HIGHLY unusual occurrences of damage spikes consistently from one player (which would probably dismiss that it's just coincidental net-code or what have you).

    That said, there's a good deal of balancing issues in the game as well. There are massive skill gaps, and then there are massive skill gaps even within the top end. I used to deal with having HIGGGGGGHLY limited options while finding opponents to play against in competitive, not necessarily because there weren't enough teams but because there weren't enough teams that could play well (and these 'poor' teams are the same kind of teams filled with players who in turn go 'farming' in public servers with absurd KD ratio and kill counts at the end).

    While I think it's ridiculous to say 'people are bad are blind in matters of hacks', I do think there's a merit to the notion that when a player has limited ability, when they in turn look toward far higher skilled players, they may misconstrue mechanics/skillsets as being related to hacks instead.

  • KeithxSavage
    87 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    What system are you on? I'm on PS4 & I've never once spotted an obvious cheater, not yet anyways.. On my PC though I've spotted hackers left & right on the first person shooters.
  • produc3
    194 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    What system are you on? I'm on PS4 & I've never once spotted an obvious cheater, not yet anyways.. On my PC though I've spotted hackers left & right on the first person shooters.

    I m on PC. I predominantly play Domination, as soloing on Conquest is more frustrating than Domination. I will probably do Conquest again when/if Conquest ever comes out. Domination is almost devoid of cheating IMO. At least on NA. I've heard from Minidoracat (a relatively high profile streamer) that Asian servers are out of control, which is why him and his crew play on NA servers
  • xX-ALeIaQ-Xx
    377 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited April 2017
    I think it's partly the hacking problem, but I also think it's in large ways tied to the indiscernible/ambiguous but very very very present skill gaps in this game's playerbase.

    I do think both sides have a point, those decrying hackers being everywhere aren't entirely off. I don't notice when I play domination but when I play conquest quite often see highly HIGHLY unusual occurrences of damage spikes consistently from one player (which would probably dismiss that it's just coincidental net-code or what have you).

    That said, there's a good deal of balancing issues in the game as well. There are massive skill gaps, and then there are massive skill gaps even within the top end. I used to deal with having HIGGGGGGHLY limited options while finding opponents to play against in competitive, not necessarily because there weren't enough teams but because there weren't enough teams that could play well (and these 'poor' teams are the same kind of teams filled with players who in turn go 'farming' in public servers with absurd KD ratio and kill counts at the end).

    While I think it's ridiculous to say 'people are bad are blind in matters of hacks', I do think there's a merit to the notion that when a player has limited ability, when they in turn look toward far higher skilled players, they may misconstrue mechanics/skillsets as being related to hacks instead.


    Can you explain to me, why i can't understand a similar movement :

    I can't link the exact moment (in this forum) so is in this video

    a this time ?t=59s

    the correct link is h t t p s : / / youtu.be/qHv2ICm7p6I ?t=59s

    in your videos a seen a lot of thing that unlike to me, but this is a simply question, explain to me where is the skill in a similar movement.

    Sorry if you think that i did hackusation against you, is a simple question, no more.
  • Mikhailovitch
    364 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited April 2017
    Teh_Next wrote: »
    1. It's painfully obvious that BF1 was released in a state that was far from optimized in terms of both CPU and memory usage; for months now an awful lot of guys that are running even top-shelf hardware have been vociferously complaining about the now infamous CPU logjam/ frame-dropping issues.
    2. Taking a gander at my own setup, last night I checked on my QTWebEngineProcess.exe and that nasty little monster was eating 1.8gb of RAM while my machine was sitting idle; as in, Origin was not even open, the game was turned off, and yet that horrible memory hole was still eating a giant-sized bite out of my rig.
    3. So, yes, the introduction/ adaptation of a good AC might very well have pushed BF1 over the cliff's edge when it comes to processing loads -- but I have to point out that this is only true because Dice released the game with some rather painfully awful optimization issues.
    4. Which brings me back to an earlier point: if Dice knew about these issues -- the processing imbroglio + the incompatibility of a good AC with the game's current setup -- then they should have simply pushed back the release date and tinkered up a reasonable solution before the actual commercial drop of the game. Unlike BF4, EA was under no particular marketing gun regarding as to exactly when they released the game, and so they could have easily spent a few extra months getting the game into a reasonable state of repair by drop time.
    5. Anything less and they willingly sold us a pig in a poke. Which, in point of fact, is exactly the choice that they ultimately opted for.
    6. And, yes, at this point it's very unlikely that Dice will introduce a solid AC to the game. Given this lack, the admins -- what few there are left after the concurrently disastrous rollout of the RSP -- are in no position to do a real job of vetting their servers. No AC means that the poor admins wind up getting swamped by sheer weight of numbers, and are in no shape to spend the amount of spectating time that it would take to weed out the hacks.
    7. Yep, paid hacks have always been a problem -- have been from the very first days of fps gaming -- but they are relatively few in number. The real problem is the amateur or, as you put it, the hobbyist cheat developers, who by virtue of their amateur status can afford to give out free hacks in mass numbers.
    8. Which, and to judge by the various hacking forums, is exactly what they did; tens of thousands of free hack downloads, and this in a game that had only a few hundred thousand PC players to begin with. Iow, a relatively large proportion of the player base has already downloaded and (presumably) are using cheats.
    9. None of the above is speculative; if you don't believe me, just fire up the ole' google and start reading the horrible numbers for yourself on the various hacking forums. The lack of an active AC means that the sleazier players can afford to use the free cheats, as they are unlikely to get pegged for using even such static and non-professional programs as are (sadly) now commonly available.
    10. Which, and when you get right down to brass tacks, is ultimately the purpose behind having an AC as part of the gaming regime: it weeds out the low-hanging fruit of amateur hacks, largely restricts the use of cheats to the much smaller fraction of players that are willing to front hard cash every month to access their grab-bag of ugliness, and buys admins the time that they need to wage their subtle spectating war against the professionally sponsored hackers.

    Stopped reading at point 3.

    Made assumption that poster is decent and clued up enough to not have to read any more as it will all FALL ON DEAF EARS ANYWAY.

    OMG CAPS with DEAF EARS!!!!

    :smiley:



    Posts like the above may or may not fall upon deaf ears, but I'm not really going for a shock and awe approach aimed at a huge swath of the player base; rather, if I can manage to give even a moderately useful tidbit of info to a couple of players it's enough for me. I've received similarly useful bits from other people's postings over the years, so I figure it's just good karma. Also, a useful way to kill time while I'm stuck in queue :expressionless:
  • Gigabyte9
    169 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    snipped because too large once quoted

    I largely agree with what you are saying and I should clarify that I am in no way against a client side anticheat. I have written many critical posts on here and Reddit regarding Fairfight and I wish a better anticheat was included from the start. Having said that, my stance is that I feel that some people greatly exaggerate the issue. I do not deny that there are more than normal, but at the same time the cheating is not so bad that there is a blatantly obvious one in every game like many people claim.

    To address your points:

    1-4) Unfortunately we are where we are. 6 months on and the game is still pushing CPUs like the i5s really hard. There could be hundreds of reasons why the CPU usage was not able to reduce before the release or even at this point. If an anticheat was implemented now, it really would push a lot of systems over the cliff edge. I would also guess that it was not a huge priority for them. Since the game is riddled with bugs, I would imagine the main focus is for solving them since the majority of players are on console.

    I doubt pushing back the launch was an option. EA is known for their strict deadlines and pushing back a highly anticipated games launch due to PC optimization issues would be detrimental, especially since the majority of players are on console. If they did the GTA approach and only delayed the PC version, it would be a PR disaster.

    7) I can see at least four paid providers for this game. The free hacks are one of the key problems in this game as the attitude of cheating is different here. With anticheat systems like VAC, Punkbuster etc there is always the fear that the hack could become detected at anytime without warning. In many ways it acts like a deterrent. With Fairfight however, the attitude is that as long as you are careful, you likely wont be caught. This creates the opportunist cheaters who don't normally cheat, but due to the relatively low risk and easy access they use them. I am also sure that a few people who feel that hacking is rampant in every game also turns to hacks in order to remain competitive in their view. Again, I feel that such anticheat should have been included from the start.

    8) The free hacks do have a lot of downloads though you can safely say that not all of them are regularly playing the game. Fairfight will still have weeded out a good portion of them. The hacks usually have a few thousand downloads each and you can also assume that many are duplicate (e.g a cheater finding the best cheat by trying them all), not all downloads are used and that some are already banned. The percentage of cheating is likely higher than normal but I do not feel that it is outrageous either.

    10) It would certainly weed out the low hanging fruit however, the game is simply insecure. Battlefield 4 had a wide range of free hacks throughout its lifespan. Granted, they could be detected (though many lasted for months, perhaps even longer) but more and more kept popping up. The game itself needed to be more secure in addition to a client sided anticheat at launch. Hacks that shouldn't be possible in Battlefield, are.

    Again I agree largely with what you are saying. I am still highly critical of Fairfight (especially during my false positive ban) and have created many negative posts over on Reddit. I just feel that often the situation is blown out of proportion on these forums. In a way, these forums act like a vacuum regarding this topic. If you browse elsewhere you can definitely see posts regarding cheating, but the frequency and intensity of such posts are not as high as here.
  • Gigabyte9
    169 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Micas99 wrote: »
    The incidence of cheating is irrelevant, isn't it? It's like every third post in this thread is "there's not as much cheating as people say" as if that has anything to do with.. well, anything. It's impossible for any of us to know regardless, so speculation is just useless.

    The whole point is that there is zero client side AC in BF1 and a lot of people would like there to be. Many of us would like EA/Dice to take cheating as seriously as Blizzard does. The game could have zero total cheaters in it, and we'd still much prefer there be an effective AC in the game (no, FF doesn't count).

    So no.. the 'best thing Dice can do now' is not as you describe. The best thing Dice can do is what Blizzard does. The best thing the rest of us who are bothered by Dice's lack of interest in PC shooters can do is simply to not buy their games anymore. Dice may or may not care about that, but all of us PC shooter veterans have been put on notice that Dice just doesn't give a damn.

    It's too late to do what Blizzard does. If they wanted the Blizzard approach they would have to had done it straight out of the gate and don't give an inch. The game needed to be developed from the beginning to perform excessive sanity checks, hardened as much as possible early in the development cycle, partnered with an effective anticheat solution backed with a strong legal stance at release and more. Overwatch would have been built with security in mind from the ground up, not ported from a console with an anticheat included as an afterthought. It is also a long life product that will still have a healthy playerbase in years whereas Battlefield isn't, so it makes the investment for Blizzard worth it.

    The damage is already done. Free and paid cheats are plentiful and developers already have a strong understanding of the game and it's engine. Implementing a new anticheat will obviously remove some (mostly free) hacks and reduce cheaters, though it would not be as effective as some hope. Free hacks will reduce (though not disappear) and paid hacks will adapt. It is also too late to have a strong legal stance like Blizzard, especially since EA/Dice does not have the same attitude and competitive scene and it's less effective against those who upload it for free.

    The best thing Dice can do for the next game is the Blizzard approach (which is unlikely), but it's too late to have that for Battlefield 1.
  • Kunstula
    473 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    smoogelz wrote: »
    You do not know the reasons why there is no client side anticheat and it humors me that people on these forums believe they know more about this issue than Dice themselves.

    There could be no client anticheat because:

    1) The cost
    2) The resources required. A client side anticheat is resource intensive. What about those running older i5s with 100% CPU usage? The performance could significantly worsen if a new anticheat was implemented.
    3) The time and man resources to implement it into the game.

    There could be many other reasons that Dice decided not to implement one.

    Taken directly from BattlEye site:

    How Does It All Work?

    To ensure that you can focus on the important parts of game development without having to directly deal with cheating yourself, we made sure that BattlEye is very easy to integrate into any game, making it ready for release within days. BattlEye has no special system requirements: Being very user-friendly, BE needs only little resources regarding CPU, RAM and network bandwidth. The player simply will not notice that BattlEye is running in the background. Integration happens on the server- and client-side part of the game, ensuring that cheaters can be effectively removed from any game session. BattlEye is distributed together with the other game files, so a manual download from our website is generally not required.


    smoogelz wrote: »
    Battlefield 4 had a client side anticheat yet people complained about cheating just like they are now.

    Is cheating more common than some other games? Yes. Is it so bad that you have to quit the game? No.

    Plus, a new anticheat wont simply cure the hacking problem. There will still be many cheaters and the same people will be on these forums complaining that Dice must do more. Implementing an new anticheat is nowhere near as easy as just purchasing the license and running an installer...

    Everybody knows that cheaters will keep trying to ruin games, but using that as an excuse to not use the best means to combat it is just looking for an easy way out to escape the responsibility of protecting your products and services against misuse. You talk as if cheating shouldn't be taken more seriously because cheaters they will never give up cheating.

    And implementing a new client side anti-cheat is definitely doable, just look at the other (large scale) FPS that already use it. Even indie developers use it and they are not exactly known for having lots of resources to spend on developing games. Also, battlEye had already been used in the older battlefield games as can be read on their site:

    BattlEye (BE) was founded by Bastian Suter in October 2004. Starting out as an external 3rd-party anti-cheat for Battlefield Vietnam, first versions were quickly released and it rapidly gained first acknowledgement. In early 2005, it was integrated in the first professional leagues. Due to request by the community, BattlEye was then ported to Battlefield 1942 and again used by some leagues.

    The breakthrough came a few months later, when BattlEye was newly developed for the highly anticipated Battlefield 2. After its release in June 2005, the demand for BattlEye from a huge and active community grew more and more and it soon was integrated in many leagues (including all large German ones). From time to time, many server admins decided to protect their public servers with the system as well.


    I still haven't seen a good excuse to not use BattlEye or a similar client side anti-cheat for BF1.
Sign In or Register to comment.