No anticheat in new patch-Im out

Comments

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

    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.


    Again, we don't know why an client side anticheat is not implemented, my post was speculative.

    Additionally, the first quote is marketing. They are marketing their product for potential buyers so will of course say it's not resource intensive, great at catching cheaters and gives every player a pony. It's like how the official Fairfight website says it's great and never bans legitimate players. "Little" is not defined and, in Battlefields current state, a "little" amount of resources cannot be spared when an i5 often struggles for some players as it is.

    Ultimately, we don't know the behind the scenes regarding resources or their decision to not include the anticheat. Regardless, they have confirmed not to be using Battleye and I doubt they ever will in future releases. If they do include an anticheat in future games, I would imagine it would just be something like Punkbuster again.
    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.

    I'm not saying Dice shouldn't have done more. I have consistently said that people often exaggerate the number of cheaters but have acknowledged that there are more than normal and I have noted in the post above that they should have used an client side anticheat from the start. Most of my posts here have supported this and I have been very critical of Dice and Fairfight (primarily elsewhere but here also).

    Regarding implementing the anticheat, of course it's doable. One can only speculate that hardware resources are a likely factor, alongside other potential factors. When one of the most popular CPU ranges, the Intel i5, is running at 100% their isn't much room for anything else and 6 months on there has been no significant attempt to reduce CPU usage. They may not of wanted to pay the licensing costs for the smallest playerbase or want to dedicate the time debugging and implementing it in addition to Fairfight. It could have been one factor amongst many.

    I also said that it's incredibly unlikely for them to implement a client side anticheat due to the cost and time required alongside many other potential factors. Battlefield isn't a long life game compared to something like Overwatch or CS:GO. EA and Dice will not want to invest in a new anticheat 6 months into the game for a small player base as it wouldn't have a worthwhile return.

    I want future Battlefields to have a better anticheat solution, but unfortunately that the chances of BF1 getting a significant anticheat revamp is slim.

    Regardless, I have put my views, opinions and pennys in and you're all free to agree or disagree. I don't have much more to say or time regarding the topic so for now, I shall be on the Battlefield.
  • Rev0verDrive
    6762 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    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.

    BE was never directly integrated into a Battlefield title. PunkBuster was the only "Official" AC for 1942, Vietnam and BF2. Some parts of the community used it as an additional "plugin". Ladders and leagues as well used it. But for clarity it was never integrated by DICE or EA into any Battlefield title.

    Just saying, because the above text "implies" EA/DICE used BE for those titles.

    Once again for clarity ... DICE has already stated they are not going to use Battleye. They have something else they are working on.
  • FierceBrosnan007
    1043 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    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.

    BE was never directly integrated into a Battlefield title. PunkBuster was the only "Official" AC for 1942, Vietnam and BF2. Some parts of the community used it as an additional "plugin". Ladders and leagues as well used it. But for clarity it was never integrated by DICE or EA into any Battlefield title.

    Just saying, because the above text "implies" EA/DICE used BE for those titles.

    Once again for clarity ... DICE has already stated they are not going to use Battleye. They have something else they are working on.

    It must be huge if it has taken this long! /s
    As long as it is clientside..
  • Rev0verDrive
    6762 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    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.

    BE was never directly integrated into a Battlefield title. PunkBuster was the only "Official" AC for 1942, Vietnam and BF2. Some parts of the community used it as an additional "plugin". Ladders and leagues as well used it. But for clarity it was never integrated by DICE or EA into any Battlefield title.

    Just saying, because the above text "implies" EA/DICE used BE for those titles.

    Once again for clarity ... DICE has already stated they are not going to use Battleye. They have something else they are working on.

    It must be huge if it has taken this long! /s
    As long as it is clientside..

    Well based on the netcode changes coming in the next 1-2 patches I can only theorize what some of the AC may be. It might not even be a new 3rd party utility. I'm theorizing that it will be very strict server-side hit registration checks. At least part of it. The new patch will be forcing all players with pings over 100ms to server-side hit detection. No more client-side detection and server auth/reg for these players.

    Server-side scrutiny is vastly superior to client-side AC. client-side AC is all about detecting modifying/assistant software. If you can't detect it, you can't prevent or deal with it. Server-side scrutinization directly analyses the action.
  • produc3
    194 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Aren my posts being screened? Why did my last post require approval for posting?
  • kL-SnAjP
    497 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    edited April 2017
    VIPs need approval from the higherups, i heard you are making masses contraproductive ! @ESF-Chrispy

    anyway, i am kinda afraid whatever they implement and if @Rev0verDrive is right, and the solution is mostly if not only, server side, we will have the same system for the next bf game in line. Lets call it bf2.5 for now. And if this bf2.5 is even a little bit of a esports game, as some evidence (acquisition of Drunkkz and this job offer) could point to that.....we would be kinda stuck with passive esp overlays no1 and nothing can detect. Which would be kinda "funny".

    Some1 earlier pointed at that clientside anticheat would devour some processor time of this already hungry game. Well, in bf3 we had to record every match with external software, and i dont remember shadowplay was usable already at that time. So some us took heavy fps hits. And yet, we had plenty of fun.

    On the similar note, even if they implement some amazing anticheat solution, its gonna be all for nothing due to this server renting joke. No1 gonna play competetive matches on server with ping of 80+ms since the nearest EA friendly datacenter is located across two states. 13 years ago, from my uni, we had 5ms to cs servers across the country and now you wanna tell me we are down to this becouse of money?

    Seriously, if local servers(datacenters), anticheat system, maybe even recording feature wount be announced as selling points of bf2.5, plenty of people gonna skip it as the first bf ever.
  • PcPAirgun
    633 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    kL-SnAjP wrote: »
    Seriously, if local servers(datacenters), anticheat system, maybe even recording feature wount be announced as selling points of bf2.5, plenty of people gonna skip it as the first bf ever.
    That's pure Marketing at its finest like we already can experience. Remove standard Features, reimplant them in later Titles and call it a Revolution...

  • Mikhailovitch
    364 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I've got to agree with smoogelz in most or even all of his points.
    1. Yeah, cheating in BF1 is likely more common than in most other fps games -- the lack of an active AC practically guarantees that much right out of the box -- but is not at the truly crazy levels that some might suggest. Personally, I'm willing to allow that the number is likely out on the far end of the usual 1-5% figure commonly given out by the professional anti-cheat programmers so, say, 5%.
    2. There is no doubt that BF1 is a simply preposterous resource hog so, sure, even the relatively small requirements of a good AC might very well tip the game itself into solid glitch territory; like smoogelz, this is just speculation on my part, but BF1 is definitely already pushing the outer limits of what most even moderately powerful gaming rigs can achieve, so even a small increase in processing requirements might prove to be the proverbial straw and camel. It's a plausible theory, anyways.
    3. Plus, EA is not precisely known for being generous with their resources, and we PC players are a tiny fragment of the player base... so even if the job could be done, I just do not see EA exactly waving the money stick around in an attempt to solve our PC problems.
    4. Hadn't thought of the hard line that EA takes with release schedules but, and that said, if EA had appealed directly to the PC gaming audience and said why they were pushing the drop date back -- to make the game far more stable and/ or as free from cheating as possible -- such an event would likely have received a literal standing ovation from most of the PC players that I know, many of whom were still badly smarting from the horrendously rushed release of BF4. Otoh, dunno what EA's stockholders would have said about such a delay, so that's probably the real audience that EA was worried about.

    ...

    5. As I've previously stated, I don't think that the main problem is the overall amount of cheaters in this game -- on the high side, sure, but not totally out of the park -- but rather that the hacks can now afford to be much more blatant about their sleazy ways, and so a lot of players are now noticing the problem for the first time and getting a bit peeved.
    6. I hope to God that RevOverDrive is right about a possible connection to the upcoming server-side detection patch and the potential inclusion of what amounts to an anti-cheat; as I've said in previous postings. I'm not savvy enough about programming to really comment on the matter, but it does seem to be an obvious opportunity to drop one heck of a hammer on the amateur cheats that are floating around. If they can manage such a thing without blowing the server-side processing requirements straight to the moon, I'll be the first one to hand out the plaudits.
  • Rev0verDrive
    6762 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    @kL-SnAjP
    As I stated before, Client-Side detection is nowhere near as good as server-side scrutiny. What I mean by scrutiny is functions strictly designed to mathematically calculate hits based on point of trigger pull to the exact location the projectile hits over the course of flight. Every bullet, every time. In that world you cannot modify bullet damage, trajectory or even the position you were in at the time of firing. Regardless if you have a tool that client-side cannot detect, the raw math can tell.

    All weapons have predefined stats. Drag coeff, first shot recoil, spread, spread increase, spread decrease, damage drop off.
    Every player has predefined character stats based on loadout. Health, ammo etc. All of which could be tracked in realtime by the server.

    The biggest problem with all of this is the resource required. More server cpu and ram, which inflates server costs.
  • kL-SnAjP
    497 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    edited April 2017
    almighty @Rev0verDrive :) correct me if i am wrong. Since commercial cheats offers gazilion of features, that would mean that there is still "gazilion" features clientside in this version of Frostbyte. So wouldnt they have to change em all to server side? not just hit detection i mean, if "you" can place several types of overlays, turn off the weather etc
    Post edited by kL-SnAjP on
  • xcasxcursex
    1676 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    is not at the truly crazy levels that some might suggest. ...say, 5%.

    That's one in 20 players. That's 3 on every server. That's 'truly crazy levels' if you ask me.
  • Rev0verDrive
    6762 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    kL-SnAjP wrote: »
    almighty @Rev0verDrive :) correct me if i am wrong. Since commercial cheats offers gazilion of features, that would mean that there is still "gazilion" features clientside in this version of Frostbyte. So wouldnt they have to change em all to server side? not just hit detection i mean, if "you" can place several types of overlays, turn of the weather etc

    Weather, destruction etc are all client based animations. X client does not see the exact same raindrops as any other player...wind gust etc. The server merely sends an update to the client as to when they start and stop said events. Destruction is queued in the same manner.

    When you blow out a wall on a building it's instant, but for everyone else the event happens later....update travel time. Server to them. You knock down a tree and it lands on the ground a specific way. It's not the same for all the other players.

    FairFight....
    There is no client-side to FairFight. FairFight is an API hooked into the server. FF has nothing to do with hit detection or any other game play mechanic. It's a 3rd party analytic/statistics/probability engine (for the most part). Each weapon has a theoretical HSK, HTK, Accuracy etc probability floor and ceiling. The average player falls into specific patterns of probability and ability. Metric analyses will flag odd/peculiar results. e.g. a sudden spike in HSK, accuracy over range etc. At which time the player is thoroughly scrutinized over longer periods of time. The final results are then screened/reviewed by the AC team, at which point they either ban or drop the case.

    As far as cheats go, there are no server-side cheats. All BF cheats are client-side based. Modifications/manipulations of data sent to the server about the client and his/her action.
  • OP_Glitchmobile
    978 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    All BF cheats are client-side based.

    Good thing it has clientside AC then....ooooooh weeeehaiiit...

  • Matty101yttam
    1466 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    They should just have extra 'ai' player info being sent to clients, for regular players it would be as normal, but aimbots and walls would be freaked out and less efficient
  • Micas99
    816 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    1. Yeah, cheating in BF1 is likely more common than in most other fps games -- the lack of an active AC practically guarantees that much right out of the box -- but is not at the truly crazy levels that some might suggest. Personally, I'm willing to allow that the number is likely out on the far end of the usual 1-5% figure commonly given out by the professional anti-cheat programmers so, say, 5%.

    I need to come up with a name for the truism that every third post is "there's not as much cheating as people think"... again, as if that means anything at all. There's not as many pigeons crapping on my car as I would think (based on observations of the output of pigeon to crap ratio vs. accuracy), but there's still crap on my car.

    Your guess, and that's what it is, a guess, that cheating is not at 'truly crazy levels' is no more valid than some else saying half the players in any particular game are cheating in one way or another. So, you know what that make either claim? Completely.. and utterly and totally.. pointless. The point is that BF1 currently has zero client side AC. At least Rev0verDrive makes some interesting points about things Dice may do in the future, but I'm certainly not going to play this game on PC until if/when that happens and it's shown to be effective based on the tears in hacker forums.

    Meanwhile, I'm waiting patiently while re-playing some classic RPGs. Dragon Age Origins is soooooo good. There's some train-de-rail fodder for ya!
  • Mikhailovitch
    364 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited April 2017
    1. An average of three hacks per 64-player server may be a bit on the high side for the fps genre, but it's not totally off the rails either; according to most of the professional AC programmers, cheating in fps gaming in general tends to hover in the 1-5% range, so the odds are that in most every other fps game that you've played over the years you have also had a couple of hacks on the servers with you.
    2. It's just that, and in no small part due to the traditional admin fisheye, most of those hackers have tried to be a bit more subtle with their cheating, aka in the closet, than they tend to be right now in BF1 -- a result that is likely to wholly be a result of the lack of an AC + the horrible RSP rollout that pretty much killed off most of the active admins in this game.
    3. In short, and iow, if nobody is looking why bother to hide the crime. Hence, more peeps are starting to notice the bodies piling up in the street, as none of their murderers trouble themselves with the traditional shovel and shallow grave.
    4. Yeah, all of this is just pure guesswork, and based upon three major points: i. Most professional AC programmers have usually put the fps genre hacking numbers at 1-5% so, and lacking any evidence to the contrary, I personally tend to just run with the pro opinion on the genre as a whole. Followed by. ii. the hacking forums have downloaded a simply huge number of PC hacks for a game that does not really have all that many players, which strongly implies that an exceptionally large fraction of the player base is all hacked up. So, putting the number of cheats at the high end of the traditional 1-5% number seems plausible. iii. Common sense. If a game has no active AC and essentially no admins then, yeah, you would expect more hackers so, again, at the high end of the usual numbers ~ 5%.
    5. It could be less, it could be a heck of a lot more -- when you get right down to brass tacks, it is possible that we've got, say, 30% of the players currently running walls and bots, and without an AC and admins, there is nothing that we can do about it. That said, over many years of fps gaming I've seen just far too many spurious hackusastions flying around, so I tend to be *cough* more than a bit skeptical when it comes to buying into the whole "this game is totally flooded with hackers" perspective.
    6. If the devs can tie in a scaling server-side detection system that, just perhaps, could be expanded to include random checking of players at all ping levels, and could do so without blowing up the processing requirements, then this might constitute the basis for one heck of an AC program. No clue as to how easily the pro hacks could get around such a randomized server-side checking system, but it stands to reason that it might be a bit harder than usual, and possibly a *lot* harder.
  • SebastianYarric
    101 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    haha i just ordered a htc vive.^^
    i havent heard of anybody cheating there and they have some mp games too.
    and with the revive app its even better.^^
    .
    but i wont stop playing bf1 just because of cheaters...
    in my case the game feels abit wobbly.(i dont know if its like this in every bf game. maybe soo)
    i dont like to use 80% of the guns cause i hate aiming over iron sight. (the optical ones are ok, but even the lil dot wobbles alot.)
    and the startrek teleporting team spawns i just love those...(love it even more when the other team spawns in your territory...)
    kinda dont like it that tanks and planes have unlimited ammo & bombs.
    medics have no real cc gun. the sweeper is ok, but it has no optical version and the fire rate is way to low.
    .
    hmm could go on and on.
    well i got my 3 ea games that i own as a gift 2 months ago(tf2, bf1,swbf), so i cant be mad about the price i paid^^
    but how can i say this.... out of the 3 games only one felt like a pc game.
    ill take a small time out from ea games^^ maybe play 20 min on the weekend or so, but as a main game.. meh back to steam^^
  • CedarOfLebanon
    664 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    1. An average of three hacks per 64-player server may be a bit on the high side for the fps genre, but it's not totally off the rails either; according to most of the professional AC programmers, cheating in fps gaming in general tends to hover in the 1-5% range, so the odds are that in most every other fps game that you've played over the years you have also had a couple of hacks on the servers with you.
    2. It's just that, and in no small part due to the traditional admin fisheye, most of those hackers have tried to be a bit more subtle with their cheating, aka in the closet, than they tend to be right now in BF1 -- a result that is likely to wholly be a result of the lack of an AC + the horrible RSP rollout that pretty much killed off most of the active admins in this game.
    3. In short, and iow, if nobody is looking why bother to hide the crime. Hence, more peeps are starting to notice the bodies piling up in the street, as none of their murderers trouble themselves with the traditional shovel and shallow grave.
    4. Yeah, all of this is just pure guesswork, and based upon three major points: i. Most professional AC programmers have usually put the fps genre hacking numbers at 1-5% so, and lacking any evidence to the contrary, I personally tend to just run with the pro opinion on the genre as a whole. Followed by. ii. the hacking forums have downloaded a simply huge number of PC hacks for a game that does not really have all that many players, which strongly implies that an exceptionally large fraction of the player base is all hacked up. So, putting the number of cheats at the high end of the traditional 1-5% number seems plausible. iii. Common sense. If a game has no active AC and essentially no admins then, yeah, you would expect more hackers so, again, at the high end of the usual numbers ~ 5%.
    5. It could be less, it could be a heck of a lot more -- when you get right down to brass tacks, it is possible that we've got, say, 30% of the players currently running walls and bots, and without an AC and admins, there is nothing that we can do about it. That said, over many years of fps gaming I've seen just far too many spurious hackusastions flying around, so I tend to be *cough* more than a bit skeptical when it comes to buying into the whole "this game is totally flooded with hackers" perspective.
    6. If the devs can tie in a scaling server-side detection system that, just perhaps, could be expanded to include random checking of players at all ping levels, and could do so without blowing up the processing requirements, then this might constitute the basis for one heck of an AC program. No clue as to how easily the pro hacks could get around such a randomized server-side checking system, but it stands to reason that it might be a bit harder than usual, and possibly a *lot* harder.
    1. An average of three hacks per 64-player server may be a bit on the high side for the fps genre, but it's not totally off the rails either; according to most of the professional AC programmers, cheating in fps gaming in general tends to hover in the 1-5% range, so the odds are that in most every other fps game that you've played over the years you have also had a couple of hacks on the servers with you.
    2. It's just that, and in no small part due to the traditional admin fisheye, most of those hackers have tried to be a bit more subtle with their cheating, aka in the closet, than they tend to be right now in BF1 -- a result that is likely to wholly be a result of the lack of an AC + the horrible RSP rollout that pretty much killed off most of the active admins in this game.
    3. In short, and iow, if nobody is looking why bother to hide the crime. Hence, more peeps are starting to notice the bodies piling up in the street, as none of their murderers trouble themselves with the traditional shovel and shallow grave.
    4. Yeah, all of this is just pure guesswork, and based upon three major points: i. Most professional AC programmers have usually put the fps genre hacking numbers at 1-5% so, and lacking any evidence to the contrary, I personally tend to just run with the pro opinion on the genre as a whole. Followed by. ii. the hacking forums have downloaded a simply huge number of PC hacks for a game that does not really have all that many players, which strongly implies that an exceptionally large fraction of the player base is all hacked up. So, putting the number of cheats at the high end of the traditional 1-5% number seems plausible. iii. Common sense. If a game has no active AC and essentially no admins then, yeah, you would expect more hackers so, again, at the high end of the usual numbers ~ 5%.
    5. It could be less, it could be a heck of a lot more -- when you get right down to brass tacks, it is possible that we've got, say, 30% of the players currently running walls and bots, and without an AC and admins, there is nothing that we can do about it. That said, over many years of fps gaming I've seen just far too many spurious hackusastions flying around, so I tend to be *cough* more than a bit skeptical when it comes to buying into the whole "this game is totally flooded with hackers" perspective.
    6. If the devs can tie in a scaling server-side detection system that, just perhaps, could be expanded to include random checking of players at all ping levels, and could do so without blowing up the processing requirements, then this might constitute the basis for one heck of an AC program. No clue as to how easily the pro hacks could get around such a randomized server-side checking system, but it stands to reason that it might be a bit harder than usual, and possibly a *lot* harder.

    Who the hell would read all of that
  • OP_Glitchmobile
    978 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    3 ea games that i own as a gift 2

    Even free, is too expensive when dealing with EA.

  • Kunstula
    473 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    1. An average of three hacks per 64-player server may be a bit on the high side for the fps genre, but it's not totally off the rails either; according to most of the professional AC programmers, cheating in fps gaming in general tends to hover in the 1-5% range, so the odds are that in most every other fps game that you've played over the years you have also had a couple of hacks on the servers with you.
    2. It's just that, and in no small part due to the traditional admin fisheye, most of those hackers have tried to be a bit more subtle with their cheating, aka in the closet, than they tend to be right now in BF1 -- a result that is likely to wholly be a result of the lack of an AC + the horrible RSP rollout that pretty much killed off most of the active admins in this game.
    3. In short, and iow, if nobody is looking why bother to hide the crime. Hence, more peeps are starting to notice the bodies piling up in the street, as none of their murderers trouble themselves with the traditional shovel and shallow grave.
    4. Yeah, all of this is just pure guesswork, and based upon three major points: i. Most professional AC programmers have usually put the fps genre hacking numbers at 1-5% so, and lacking any evidence to the contrary, I personally tend to just run with the pro opinion on the genre as a whole. Followed by. ii. the hacking forums have downloaded a simply huge number of PC hacks for a game that does not really have all that many players, which strongly implies that an exceptionally large fraction of the player base is all hacked up. So, putting the number of cheats at the high end of the traditional 1-5% number seems plausible. iii. Common sense. If a game has no active AC and essentially no admins then, yeah, you would expect more hackers so, again, at the high end of the usual numbers ~ 5%.
    5. It could be less, it could be a heck of a lot more -- when you get right down to brass tacks, it is possible that we've got, say, 30% of the players currently running walls and bots, and without an AC and admins, there is nothing that we can do about it. That said, over many years of fps gaming I've seen just far too many spurious hackusastions flying around, so I tend to be *cough* more than a bit skeptical when it comes to buying into the whole "this game is totally flooded with hackers" perspective.
    6. If the devs can tie in a scaling server-side detection system that, just perhaps, could be expanded to include random checking of players at all ping levels, and could do so without blowing up the processing requirements, then this might constitute the basis for one heck of an AC program. No clue as to how easily the pro hacks could get around such a randomized server-side checking system, but it stands to reason that it might be a bit harder than usual, and possibly a *lot* harder.
    Who the hell would read all of that
    Perhaps people who are interested in the subject and possess an attention span longer than a few seconds?

Sign In or Register to comment.