No anticheat in new patch-Im out

Comments

  • eggfarts1220
    124 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    0pt3r wrote: »
    cyaaa

    Cyaa
  • eggfarts1220
    124 postsMember, Battlefield 3, 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.

    Have you ever thought just once that maybe multi player fps games just aren't for you?

    Sadly the "Fractured Butt Whole" got delayed again.

    Have you ever thought that being a liberal is part of the problem! Be a leader with a voice and not a person in the crowd chanting for what you have no idea!
  • ITS_BOB_GNARLY
    2190 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, 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.
  • Netranger9
    178 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I've personally seen at least one or two people in this thread who I bumped into personally who were absolutely adamant I was cheating... which leads me to wonder how 'legitimate' the issue is (I am alright, but I am hardly a 'blatant' hacker).

    I've heard there's some hacking in Conquest, but I have yet to see anymore than ONE hacker in Domination which I've played more or less exclusively in my 80 or so hours so far.

    Back in the day, and even quite recently until BF1's launch, Domination / TDM in BF4 guaranteed that I ran into at least 3-4 indisputable hackers in a week.

    Now I don't want to draw any firm conclusions based on anecdotes be they mine or others, but guys take a breather and think. The game has a lot of problems besides hackers, and this is a new game you're learning. Couldn't it be that your muscle memory/aim-in-general has yet to adjust to the new game? Or that you simply haven't adapted well in general to the new game? Or that the game itself has wonky gun mechanics that you haven't gotten used to?

    Last night,a guy went 302-9,so its pretty legit as far as im concerned.
  • Mikhailovitch
    364 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    1. It's the longest-running and most respected clans that tend to have the best admins, if for no other reason than that they have a lot of guys that have spent literally thousands of hours in various iterations of the series shoveling the admin gravel; not saying that these guys are necessarily the best players in the world, but you take any guy that has, oh, three thousand hours+ of playing a particular game and the odds are at least reasonably good that he's got a pretty fair idea of what he's looking at.
    2. The wallers are the worst problem for most clanner admins simply because they are the hardest to detect and gather evidence against. Any decent admin is going to know that there are a significant if still miniscule number of genuinely ace players out there, and no senior clanner admin wants to be the guy that bans a legitimate ace -- it's embarrassing, to put it mildly -- so it takes a lot of time and attention to properly deal with a suspected wallhack.
    3. Absent a good AC program to help cut down on the number of such suspected wallhackers, there is just no realistic way that even the most devoted of clanner admins can spend the amount of time it takes to sort the wheat from the chaff, which means one of two things is going to happen: i. the admins are just going to basically give up and let most of the miscreants roam free, or ii. they are going to be a hella lot less careful about when they start whipping out the kick stick.
    4. Think of the situation as being rather analogous to that of a beat cop stuck working in, oh, the south side of Chicago; there are just way, way too many criminals walking the streets to deal with, so most such cops are going wind up either going on a permanent donut patrol or, alternatively, becoming a heavy-badge truncheon warrior that basically whacks anything that moves funny.
    5. Either way, the situation for the actual residents on the south side just sort of sucks.
    ...
    6. EA is not going to suffer overmuch by treating their PC player base like the unwanted red-headed step-child that we have apparently become; as a company EA is just way, way too profitable and the console market far too lucrative for a relatively few dissatisfied PC players to make so much as a dent in their bottom line. Don't kid yourself: EA is here to stay, and they can pretty much afford to beat their PC players like a rented mule if they feel like it.
  • produc3
    194 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    1. It's the longest-running and most respected clans that tend to have the best admins, if for no other reason than that they have a lot of guys that have spent literally thousands of hours in various iterations of the series shoveling the admin gravel; not saying that these guys are necessarily the best players in the world, but you take any guy that has, oh, three thousand hours+ of playing a particular game and the odds are at least reasonably good that he's got a pretty fair idea of what he's looking at.
    2. The wallers are the worst problem for most clanner admins simply because they are the hardest to detect and gather evidence against. Any decent admin is going to know that there are a significant if still miniscule number of genuinely ace players out there, and no senior clanner admin wants to be the guy that bans a legitimate ace -- it's embarrassing, to put it mildly -- so it takes a lot of time and attention to properly deal with a suspected wallhack.
    3. Absent a good AC program to help cut down on the number of such suspected g, there is just no realistic way that even the most devoted of clanner admins can spend the amount of time it takes to sort the wheat from the chaff, which means one of two things is going to happen: i. the admins are just going to basically give up and let most of the miscreants roam free, or ii. they are going to be a hella lot less careful about when they start whipping out the kick stick.
    4. Think of the situation as being rather analogous to that of a beat cop stuck working in, oh, the south side of Chicago; there are just way, way too many criminals walking the streets to deal with, so most such cops are going wind up either going on a permanent donut patrol or, alternatively, becoming a heavy-badge truncheon warrior that basically whacks anything that moves funny.
    5. Either way, the situation for the actual residents on the south side just sort of sucks.
    ...
    6. EA is not going to suffer overmuch by treating their PC player base like the unwanted red-headed step-child that we have apparently become; as a company EA is just way, way too profitable and the console market far too lucrative for a relatively few dissatisfied PC players to make so much as a dent in their bottom line. Don't kid yourself: EA is here to stay, and they can pretty much afford to beat their PC players like a rented mule if they feel like it.

    I've seen one too many blind/oblivious players with 3000+ hours to simply grant them any respect/authority purely in that metric. Not to mention a lot of admins have seeding hours under their belt.

    I see what you mean with the analogy, doesn't make it ok. And in this case the ratio of donut munchers to trigger happy morons is like 1 to 10.

    I wish the admins were nearly as considerate/reserved with "wallhacks." I also don't believe the number of legitimate players taking advantage of any handful of myriad of ways the game provides built-in "wall hacks" is so "miniscule" at all.

    Agreed on built-in AC being needed. The hackers don't even have to try, and that's sad. It's like DICE just gave up, and decided to nerf hacks by just making the game so easy to make hackers indistinguishable instead.
  • produc3
    194 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Netranger9 wrote: »
    I've personally seen at least one or two people in this thread who I bumped into personally who were absolutely adamant I was cheating... which leads me to wonder how 'legitimate' the issue is (I am alright, but I am hardly a 'blatant' hacker).

    I've heard there's some hacking in Conquest, but I have yet to see anymore than ONE hacker in Domination which I've played more or less exclusively in my 80 or so hours so far.

    Back in the day, and even quite recently until BF1's launch, Domination / TDM in BF4 guaranteed that I ran into at least 3-4 indisputable hackers in a week.

    Now I don't want to draw any firm conclusions based on anecdotes be they mine or others, but guys take a breather and think. The game has a lot of problems besides hackers, and this is a new game you're learning. Couldn't it be that your muscle memory/aim-in-general has yet to adjust to the new game? Or that you simply haven't adapted well in general to the new game? Or that the game itself has wonky gun mechanics that you haven't gotten used to?

    Last night,a guy went 302-9,so its pretty legit as far as im concerned.

    If he was the only decent player on the other team (not having to share kills) and was using a vehicle, and the round lasted long enough (somehow all the "pacifists" on his team prolonged the duration with PTFOing against equally bad opponents), 302-9 is possible. 100-0 rounds are dime a dozen. I mean this must have been the pub round of his life, but it'd depend on the circumstance.

    90% he wasn't though, so sure.
  • emerson1975
    501 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Netranger9 wrote: »
    I've personally seen at least one or two people in this thread who I bumped into personally who were absolutely adamant I was cheating... which leads me to wonder how 'legitimate' the issue is (I am alright, but I am hardly a 'blatant' hacker).

    I've heard there's some hacking in Conquest, but I have yet to see anymore than ONE hacker in Domination which I've played more or less exclusively in my 80 or so hours so far.

    Back in the day, and even quite recently until BF1's launch, Domination / TDM in BF4 guaranteed that I ran into at least 3-4 indisputable hackers in a week.

    Now I don't want to draw any firm conclusions based on anecdotes be they mine or others, but guys take a breather and think. The game has a lot of problems besides hackers, and this is a new game you're learning. Couldn't it be that your muscle memory/aim-in-general has yet to adjust to the new game? Or that you simply haven't adapted well in general to the new game? Or that the game itself has wonky gun mechanics that you haven't gotten used to?

    Last night,a guy went 302-9,so its pretty legit as far as im concerned.

    If he was the only decent player on the other team (not having to share kills) and was using a vehicle, and the round lasted long enough (somehow all the "pacifists" on his team prolonged the duration with PTFOing against equally bad opponents), 302-9 is possible. 100-0 rounds are dime a dozen. I mean this must have been the pub round of his life, but it'd depend on the circumstance.

    90% he wasn't though, so sure.

    Let's cut through all that.
    " He was cheating"
  • Mikhailovitch
    364 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    1. An admin with lots of playing experience is, true, no guarantee that they are going to be of good quality -- but it sure as heck helps; in my experience, anyways, virtually all of the good admins that I've known over the years have been Battlefield fanatics, with loads of gaming time under their belts (and not just sitting seed, but real playing). I mean, stick a guy in a tank for a thousand hours and he might not be the best iron-monger in the world, but the odds are much better that he's going to have a pretty good idea of just what tanks can do.
    2. Yah, there are a lot of trigger happy admins, but like I said, the more that a particular game pushes the load of dealing with anti-cheat onto the admins' shoulders, the more of this kind of heavy-badge crap that you'll tend to see. If suspected hackers are constantly clogging up the servers, then the admins are going to respond by being quicker to pull the trigger.
    3. Atm we've got a situation where essentially ALL of the anti-cheat duties have been handed off to the admins and, frankly, most of the long-time clanner guys that I know are reeling from the weight -- and since most of them have pretty negative opinions of the trigger-happy crowd of badmins, many of them are either simply giving up on being admins or (and this is the third possibility that I neglected to mention) simply leaving the game altogether.
    4. Which is bad. Any way that you look at it, when the franchise drives away the crowd of guys that have been fanatically playing and/ or acting as admins for 10+ years, the game itself will suffer as a result.
    5. And make no mistake, that is exactly what is happening. I've got a Friends list that is positively filled with guys that have been playing BF since the days of BF2 and beyond, many if not most of whom have been clanners at some point or another, and a lot of them having some serious admin experience -- and on any given night that list is a giant no-show when peering at the battlelog. Players that have been with this series since the dawn of time are now, finally, leaving the series, and in no small part due to the incredibly poor manner in which cheating and admin controls were dealt with when the game was released.
    6. Keep in mind that the vast majority of these guys, like myself, willingly suffered though the entire release fiasco of BF4 -- truly a high-water mark in the history of buggy game drops -- and still kept with the series, so it's not like we are just talking about summertime fans here. Pretty much by definition we are talking about a group of players that has *cough* a very high tolerance for bugs, glitches, and assorted release shenanigans, and yet this game has, apparently, finally gotten to the point of driving a lot of these guys away.
  • OP_Glitchmobile
    933 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Pretty much by definition we are talking about a group of players that has *cough* a very high tolerance for bugs, glitches, and assorted release shenanigans, and yet this game has, apparently, finally gotten to the point of driving a lot of these guys away.

    Like myself, who got thousands of hours in allmost all the titles.
    I got bored with this game in less than 100 hours.
    The UI is terrible, cheating is bad, grenadespam is horrible and everybody is running around with high rpm submachineguns(so i barely bothered with the inf part)
    Then we got the vehiclespawnlottery, wich put me off my favourite class....vehicles.
    You can't even change loadouts for them ingame. wtf...
    The bugs from previous games, still exist...plus new ones ofc.
    Serverbalance is atricious at best, even a rock could have coded it better...by falling down on a keyboard.
  • produc3
    194 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Netranger9 wrote: »
    I've personally seen at least one or two people in this thread who I bumped into personally who were absolutely adamant I was cheating... which leads me to wonder how 'legitimate' the issue is (I am alright, but I am hardly a 'blatant' hacker).

    I've heard there's some hacking in Conquest, but I have yet to see anymore than ONE hacker in Domination which I've played more or less exclusively in my 80 or so hours so far.

    Back in the day, and even quite recently until BF1's launch, Domination / TDM in BF4 guaranteed that I ran into at least 3-4 indisputable hackers in a week.

    Now I don't want to draw any firm conclusions based on anecdotes be they mine or others, but guys take a breather and think. The game has a lot of problems besides hackers, and this is a new game you're learning. Couldn't it be that your muscle memory/aim-in-general has yet to adjust to the new game? Or that you simply haven't adapted well in general to the new game? Or that the game itself has wonky gun mechanics that you haven't gotten used to?

    Last night,a guy went 302-9,so its pretty legit as far as im concerned.

    If he was the only decent player on the other team (not having to share kills) and was using a vehicle, and the round lasted long enough (somehow all the "pacifists" on his team prolonged the duration with PTFOing against equally bad opponents), 302-9 is possible. 100-0 rounds are dime a dozen. I mean this must have been the pub round of his life, but it'd depend on the circumstance.

    90% he wasn't though, so sure.

    Let's cut through all that.
    " He was cheating"

    And that's the attitude that has caused so much hostility between good players, average players, and ultimately muddied the real conversation that needs to be had about the hackers.
  • iiBiizzaa
    273 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    The gaming isn't battlefield player vs player

    It's aimbot vs aimbot
    It's hacks vs hacks
  • cossgt87
    214 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    1. It's the longest-running and most respected clans that tend to have the best admins, if for no other reason than that they have a lot of guys that have spent literally thousands of hours in various iterations of the series shoveling the admin gravel; not saying that these guys are necessarily the best players in the world, but you take any guy that has, oh, three thousand hours+ of playing a particular game and the odds are at least reasonably good that he's got a pretty fair idea of what he's looking at.
    2. The wallers are the worst problem for most clanner admins simply because they are the hardest to detect and gather evidence against. Any decent admin is going to know that there are a significant if still miniscule number of genuinely ace players out there, and no senior clanner admin wants to be the guy that bans a legitimate ace -- it's embarrassing, to put it mildly -- so it takes a lot of time and attention to properly deal with a suspected wallhack.
    3. Absent a good AC program to help cut down on the number of such suspected g, there is just no realistic way that even the most devoted of clanner admins can spend the amount of time it takes to sort the wheat from the chaff, which means one of two things is going to happen: i. the admins are just going to basically give up and let most of the miscreants roam free, or ii. they are going to be a hella lot less careful about when they start whipping out the kick stick.
    4. Think of the situation as being rather analogous to that of a beat cop stuck working in, oh, the south side of Chicago; there are just way, way too many criminals walking the streets to deal with, so most such cops are going wind up either going on a permanent donut patrol or, alternatively, becoming a heavy-badge truncheon warrior that basically whacks anything that moves funny.
    5. Either way, the situation for the actual residents on the south side just sort of sucks.
    ...
    6. EA is not going to suffer overmuch by treating their PC player base like the unwanted red-headed step-child that we have apparently become; as a company EA is just way, way too profitable and the console market far too lucrative for a relatively few dissatisfied PC players to make so much as a dent in their bottom line. Don't kid yourself: EA is here to stay, and they can pretty much afford to beat their PC players like a rented mule if they feel like it.

    I've seen one too many blind/oblivious players with 3000+ hours to simply grant them any respect/authority purely in that metric. Not to mention a lot of admins have seeding hours under their belt.

    I see what you mean with the analogy, doesn't make it ok. And in this case the ratio of donut munchers to trigger happy morons is like 1 to 10.

    I wish the admins were nearly as considerate/reserved with "wallhacks." I also don't believe the number of legitimate players taking advantage of any handful of myriad of ways the game provides built-in "wall hacks" is so "miniscule" at all.

    Agreed on built-in AC being needed. The hackers don't even have to try, and that's sad. It's like DICE just gave up, and decided to nerf hacks by just making the game so easy to make hackers indistinguishable instead.

    Simple then. Don't play on admined servers.
  • produc3
    194 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    cossgt87 wrote: »
    1. It's the longest-running and most respected clans that tend to have the best admins, if for no other reason than that they have a lot of guys that have spent literally thousands of hours in various iterations of the series shoveling the admin gravel; not saying that these guys are necessarily the best players in the world, but you take any guy that has, oh, three thousand hours+ of playing a particular game and the odds are at least reasonably good that he's got a pretty fair idea of what he's looking at.
    2. The wallers are the worst problem for most clanner admins simply because they are the hardest to detect and gather evidence against. Any decent admin is going to know that there are a significant if still miniscule number of genuinely ace players out there, and no senior clanner admin wants to be the guy that bans a legitimate ace -- it's embarrassing, to put it mildly -- so it takes a lot of time and attention to properly deal with a suspected wallhack.
    3. Absent a good AC program to help cut down on the number of such suspected g, there is just no realistic way that even the most devoted of clanner admins can spend the amount of time it takes to sort the wheat from the chaff, which means one of two things is going to happen: i. the admins are just going to basically give up and let most of the miscreants roam free, or ii. they are going to be a hella lot less careful about when they start whipping out the kick stick.
    4. Think of the situation as being rather analogous to that of a beat cop stuck working in, oh, the south side of Chicago; there are just way, way too many criminals walking the streets to deal with, so most such cops are going wind up either going on a permanent donut patrol or, alternatively, becoming a heavy-badge truncheon warrior that basically whacks anything that moves funny.
    5. Either way, the situation for the actual residents on the south side just sort of sucks.
    ...
    6. EA is not going to suffer overmuch by treating their PC player base like the unwanted red-headed step-child that we have apparently become; as a company EA is just way, way too profitable and the console market far too lucrative for a relatively few dissatisfied PC players to make so much as a dent in their bottom line. Don't kid yourself: EA is here to stay, and they can pretty much afford to beat their PC players like a rented mule if they feel like it.

    I've seen one too many blind/oblivious players with 3000+ hours to simply grant them any respect/authority purely in that metric. Not to mention a lot of admins have seeding hours under their belt.

    I see what you mean with the analogy, doesn't make it ok. And in this case the ratio of donut munchers to trigger happy morons is like 1 to 10.

    I wish the admins were nearly as considerate/reserved with "wallhacks." I also don't believe the number of legitimate players taking advantage of any handful of myriad of ways the game provides built-in "wall hacks" is so "miniscule" at all.

    Agreed on built-in AC being needed. The hackers don't even have to try, and that's sad. It's like DICE just gave up, and decided to nerf hacks by just making the game so easy to make hackers indistinguishable instead.

    Simple then. Don't play on admined servers.

    I didn't.

    And that's not the point of the conversation. The conversation is that it's simply not effective enough of a solution to the problem. It's too discerning and too susceptible to bias and poor judgement.

    Welcome, to the conversation.
  • LOLGotYerTags
    13844 postsMember, Moderator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Moderator
    @OP_Crutchmobile
    Don't call people "morons".
  • cossgt87
    214 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    cossgt87 wrote: »
    1. It's the longest-running and most respected clans that tend to have the best admins, if for no other reason than that they have a lot of guys that have spent literally thousands of hours in various iterations of the series shoveling the admin gravel; not saying that these guys are necessarily the best players in the world, but you take any guy that has, oh, three thousand hours+ of playing a particular game and the odds are at least reasonably good that he's got a pretty fair idea of what he's looking at.
    2. The wallers are the worst problem for most clanner admins simply because they are the hardest to detect and gather evidence against. Any decent admin is going to know that there are a significant if still miniscule number of genuinely ace players out there, and no senior clanner admin wants to be the guy that bans a legitimate ace -- it's embarrassing, to put it mildly -- so it takes a lot of time and attention to properly deal with a suspected wallhack.
    3. Absent a good AC program to help cut down on the number of such suspected g, there is just no realistic way that even the most devoted of clanner admins can spend the amount of time it takes to sort the wheat from the chaff, which means one of two things is going to happen: i. the admins are just going to basically give up and let most of the miscreants roam free, or ii. they are going to be a hella lot less careful about when they start whipping out the kick stick.
    4. Think of the situation as being rather analogous to that of a beat cop stuck working in, oh, the south side of Chicago; there are just way, way too many criminals walking the streets to deal with, so most such cops are going wind up either going on a permanent donut patrol or, alternatively, becoming a heavy-badge truncheon warrior that basically whacks anything that moves funny.
    5. Either way, the situation for the actual residents on the south side just sort of sucks.
    ...
    6. EA is not going to suffer overmuch by treating their PC player base like the unwanted red-headed step-child that we have apparently become; as a company EA is just way, way too profitable and the console market far too lucrative for a relatively few dissatisfied PC players to make so much as a dent in their bottom line. Don't kid yourself: EA is here to stay, and they can pretty much afford to beat their PC players like a rented mule if they feel like it.

    I've seen one too many blind/oblivious players with 3000+ hours to simply grant them any respect/authority purely in that metric. Not to mention a lot of admins have seeding hours under their belt.

    I see what you mean with the analogy, doesn't make it ok. And in this case the ratio of donut munchers to trigger happy morons is like 1 to 10.

    I wish the admins were nearly as considerate/reserved with "wallhacks." I also don't believe the number of legitimate players taking advantage of any handful of myriad of ways the game provides built-in "wall hacks" is so "miniscule" at all.

    Agreed on built-in AC being needed. The hackers don't even have to try, and that's sad. It's like DICE just gave up, and decided to nerf hacks by just making the game so easy to make hackers indistinguishable instead.

    Simple then. Don't play on admined servers.

    I didn't.

    And that's not the point of the conversation. The conversation is that it's simply not effective enough of a solution to the problem. It's too discerning and too susceptible to bias and poor judgement.

    Welcome, to the conversation.

    I agree its not enough but its better than nothing. We had admin servers for all other BF games, somehow we regressed and giving server admin is too complicated now. Personally, I always played on well admined community servers and wish I could for BF1. There is no good reason we can't have that in BF1.
  • produc3
    194 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    cossgt87 wrote: »
    cossgt87 wrote: »
    1. It's the longest-running and most respected clans that tend to have the best admins, if for no other reason than that they have a lot of guys that have spent literally thousands of hours in various iterations of the series shoveling the admin gravel; not saying that these guys are necessarily the best players in the world, but you take any guy that has, oh, three thousand hours+ of playing a particular game and the odds are at least reasonably good that he's got a pretty fair idea of what he's looking at.
    2. The wallers are the worst problem for most clanner admins simply because they are the hardest to detect and gather evidence against. Any decent admin is going to know that there are a significant if still miniscule number of genuinely ace players out there, and no senior clanner admin wants to be the guy that bans a legitimate ace -- it's embarrassing, to put it mildly -- so it takes a lot of time and attention to properly deal with a suspected wallhack.
    3. Absent a good AC program to help cut down on the number of such suspected g, there is just no realistic way that even the most devoted of clanner admins can spend the amount of time it takes to sort the wheat from the chaff, which means one of two things is going to happen: i. the admins are just going to basically give up and let most of the miscreants roam free, or ii. they are going to be a hella lot less careful about when they start whipping out the kick stick.
    4. Think of the situation as being rather analogous to that of a beat cop stuck working in, oh, the south side of Chicago; there are just way, way too many criminals walking the streets to deal with, so most such cops are going wind up either going on a permanent donut patrol or, alternatively, becoming a heavy-badge truncheon warrior that basically whacks anything that moves funny.
    5. Either way, the situation for the actual residents on the south side just sort of sucks.
    ...
    6. EA is not going to suffer overmuch by treating their PC player base like the unwanted red-headed step-child that we have apparently become; as a company EA is just way, way too profitable and the console market far too lucrative for a relatively few dissatisfied PC players to make so much as a dent in their bottom line. Don't kid yourself: EA is here to stay, and they can pretty much afford to beat their PC players like a rented mule if they feel like it.

    I've seen one too many blind/oblivious players with 3000+ hours to simply grant them any respect/authority purely in that metric. Not to mention a lot of admins have seeding hours under their belt.

    I see what you mean with the analogy, doesn't make it ok. And in this case the ratio of donut munchers to trigger happy morons is like 1 to 10.

    I wish the admins were nearly as considerate/reserved with "wallhacks." I also don't believe the number of legitimate players taking advantage of any handful of myriad of ways the game provides built-in "wall hacks" is so "miniscule" at all.

    Agreed on built-in AC being needed. The hackers don't even have to try, and that's sad. It's like DICE just gave up, and decided to nerf hacks by just making the game so easy to make hackers indistinguishable instead.

    Simple then. Don't play on admined servers.

    I didn't.

    And that's not the point of the conversation. The conversation is that it's simply not effective enough of a solution to the problem. It's too discerning and too susceptible to bias and poor judgement.

    Welcome, to the conversation.

    I agree its not enough but its better than nothing. We had admin servers for all other BF games, somehow we regressed and giving server admin is too complicated now. Personally, I always played on well admined community servers and wish I could for BF1. There is no good reason we can't have that in BF1.

    Oh no, I agree there. Doing away with Admins, rather their powers, especially with no built-in anti cheat is lunacy.

    If there was any reason for DICE to do what they did, it was quality control (benefits of which is... questionable to say the least) and setting up a centralized system and resources for which they could reallocate to a proper matchmaking/ladder system (which they have shown no signs of ever doing).

    It's tricky though, given how awful admins were across the board... but as DICE hasn't really balanced out the one good thing they used to do which was to ban awful awful obvious cheats, it does seem awfully executed at the end of the day.
  • iiBiizzaa
    273 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Apart from the few with adhd who claim there are no cheaters and don't have 2 brain cells to run together, it's getting bad, and it's pointless playing it now in its current state.

    Release a game on pc with a pathetic anti cheat, slow patches and shocking performance on high end rigs, and they claim the lack of content was to get the things right in the game at launch, but after 5 months it's easier to say what is still broken rather than what works lol.

    Fairfight is useless, like the people who claim there are no cheaters too.
  • ISinlessViperI
    152 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    I'd recomend watching the documentary ''(dis)honesty, the truth about lies''.
    Theyu did some research i think will ''translate'' just fine into FPS games today:

    -70% of people will cheat, if given the opportunity.

    -Very few cheat obviously, just 1%

    -The reamaining 69% will cheat as much as they can, up to the level they think they will get caught.

    So yeah, humanity....


    I disagree if someone said to me give these cheats ago... it tell them to do one. I don't spend hours and hours of my time enjoying playing games to cheat.

    I can't imagine what fun people get out of using cheats atall. Unless it's on a game like GTA London back in the day but then those cheats aren't really cheats as such they are more like developers adding content and fun with the use of infinite bullets etc.

    Online fps shooters have no place for cheats
  • FX_-0-Vince-0-
    8 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    What's amazing about the current state of cheating and this discussion, is we all predicted this would happen last summer before release; this outcome was kind of expected. I was ok with removing the antiquated PB, but to not replace it with ANYTHING was ludicrous. Removing the server rental program and ANY admin control at launch meant that PC communities (you know the ones that BUILT this franchise BTW) could not offer any help in managing cheating at all. WE WERE EVEN PAYING FOR THE SERVERS. It's perplexing why EA would allow this to happen until you realize that they may be actually trying to eliminate the PC platform altogether to focus on consoles which by comparison do not have as much of a cheating issue. From a business point of view, why spend resources to manage the PC platform problems if the console customer base is so much higher?
Sign In or Register to comment.