Impossible to play without seeing a cheat

Comments

  • NEUTR1NO
    72 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Axlerod1 wrote: »
    IT might help if EA actually perma banned players.
    That is the problem with fair fight. They get caught and EA just gives them a 3 day vacation. no big deal to them.

    No matter what anticheat system gets used, EA will not perma bann players. So no anti cheat is good.

    ^This. Until bans work, anti cheats won't. Any of them.
  • SirBobdk
    5032 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Of course, it is possible to make an effective AC. Why not.
    I do not think you should accept cheat as a natural part of a game.
    It's only a matter of EA wanting to spend costs on it or customers will pay for it.
    EA has chosen the cheap solution, which has proved to be ineffective.
    There is apparently more money in cheat programs than AC programs.
    Perhaps the spread of E-sport will bring more attention to this problem, like doping in sport.
  • frankbama
    82 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    IllIllIII wrote: »
    Of course, it is possible to make an effective AC. Why not.
    I do not think you should accept cheat as a natural part of a game.
    It's only a matter of EA wanting to spend costs on it or customers will pay for it.
    EA has chosen the cheap solution, which has proved to be ineffective.
    There is apparently more money in cheat programs than AC programs.
    Perhaps the spread of E-sport will bring more attention to this problem, like doping in sport.

    I am willing to pay double the price for a future cheatfree battlefield.

    Finally, something we agree on!
  • DeLtAuk2004
    1107 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    The cheats are something that should be managable on the cost of the game now . Paying 208£ for the next one is not reasonable at all its double punishment for the legit player not only do we have to put up with cheats in this release we then have to pay double next time .
  • IllIllIII
    4245 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    The cheats are something that should be managable on the cost of the game now . Paying 208£ for the next one is not reasonable at all its double punishment for the legit player not only do we have to put up with cheats in this release we then have to pay double next time .

    Double the base game ;)
  • Kunstula
    473 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    @Rev0verDrive

    Interesting read. Yes it was really clear to me that DICE did not include any server-side checks at all, they configured the server to trust the client in whatever it does and that is pretty much the worst thing you can do if you want to protect your game against cheat.


    I recently stumbled upon this:


    http://www.ghostrecon.net/html/interview-hackcam.htm

    Do you think this sort of stuff could work for BF1?

  • MHbluey
    739 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    BF1 Incursions will be dead in the water as a competitive game without a proper anti cheat, I'm sure DICE realises this and are working on something

    BF1 vanilla is a cheat fest (4 cheaters per 64 player server? just a guess based on an article a BF3 cheater posted back in the day, and that was when BF had client side anti cheat)

    what would happen to the BF1 population if DICE added Battleye or similar? I reckon at least a few thousand would be banned

    meanwhile I won't pay another cent for ANY EA game
  • Jinko_itx
    768 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 2017
    @Rev0verDrive

    Interesting read. Yes it was really clear to me that DICE did not include any server-side checks at all, they configured the server to trust the client in whatever it does and that is pretty much the worst thing you can do if you want to protect your game against cheat.


    I recently stumbled upon this:


    http://www.ghostrecon.net/html/interview-hackcam.htm

    Do you think this sort of stuff could work for BF1?

    actually cheats have evolved to more sophisticated dark-tech, that video is its "child" to how cheats are now made, and its unfortunate because theres a lot of people that are naive to the fact that they exist in bf1, ...calling lag and whever else to tell themselves that's its not bad at all. this thread is a very good example of it as in the beginning of this thread, many you will see saying that its not cheats, and over time has proven to be so. the problem will only get worse if companies like EA do not take bull by the horn in so many words.
  • SirBobdk
    5032 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 2017
    Another Aimbot today
    LVL88. 7000 kills and not banned. All weapons have a HS% of 50-80.
    Don't we just love FF.
  • Kunstula
    473 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 2017
    Jinko_itx wrote: »
    actually cheats have evolved to more sophisticated dark-tech, that video is its "child" to how cheats are now made, and its unfortunate because theres a lot of people that are naive to the fact that they exist in bf1, ...calling lag and whever else to tell themselves that's its not bad at all. this thread is a very good example of it as in the beginning of this thread, many you will see saying that its not cheats, and over time has proven to be so. the problem will only get worse if companies like EA do not take bull by the horn in so many words.
    Hehe, I see you made the same mistake as some of the commenters of that video.
    Actually, that video shows how the anti-cheat works and the person you see playing is cheating on purpose to demonstrate how the anti-cheat is able to recognize suspicious behavior, you can see it in the upper left corner how notifications appear every time it detects something suspicious and a score calculated to determine if it's a cheater playing or a legit player.
    It's really awesome and sad and the same time how just one guy with programming skills can do a much better job on anti-cheat than an entire team of AAA game developers.
  • Paxpaw
    77 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    edited October 2017
    I hate cheaters, but I don't think there are so many in BF1 it make it unplayable, saw the first obvious cheater today.

    I checked the leaderboards on bf1stats.com and battlefieldtracker.com and the guy on top was first viewed 8 months ago and last time 4 days ago. His KDR is 138.182! Still not banned.
    Post edited by Paxpaw on
  • Micas99
    816 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    http://www.ghostrecon.net/html/interview-hackcam.htm

    Do you think this sort of stuff could work for BF1?

    That was really interesting to watch. Speaking from a position of ignorance, but isn't that what FF is doing? My impression is that FF does that, and can collect a vast amount of data, and sort of provide a score of sorts that indicate the likelihood of a cheat. I think it's up to the company that licenses FF to determine what level of proof is needed before issuing a sanction. It could be that EA requires an extremely high threshold before banning, so maybe they're completely disregarding many of the cheat markers that are shown in that video, such as pre-firing, tracking targets through walls, no-recoil scripts, and so on.

    What would be super cool is to have that hackcam operational while spectating, of course with a much more accurate spec than is provided now. But then EA did away with metabans in BF1 so there's really no use for it.
  • Rev0verDrive
    6760 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    @Rev0verDrive

    Interesting read. Yes it was really clear to me that DICE did not include any server-side checks at all, they configured the server to trust the client in whatever it does and that is pretty much the worst thing you can do if you want to protect your game against cheat.


    I recently stumbled upon this:


    http://www.ghostrecon.net/html/interview-hackcam.htm

    Do you think this sort of stuff could work for BF1?

    Technically I think it could be done. But there's a far better way to detect ESP via Server-side AC. I posted a rough outline about it a week ago on cte reddit.
    https://www.reddit.com/r/battlefield_live/comments/72jhwr/nearly_a_year_later_what_is_being_done_to_fight/dnp0p8g/

    How ESP works
    The server sends the client updates at a set interval. The updates contain player information such as Position (spatial coordinates), velocity, heading etc. The client uses this information to generate an image of your current FOV. If a player is in a position in which he/she would be exposed (not blocked by a wall/building/geography etc) the image will contain the exposed areas of the model in the image. Otherwise they are not drawn in.

    An ESP hack simply uses the spatial coordinates of each player to draw an outline around them. The outline isn't drawn directly onto the client frame. The cheat either generates its own GUI screen overlay similar to teamspeak 3's overlay or it injects a layer of the outlines into another GUI such as MSI Afterburner. Look at it like layers in photoshop. Layer 1 is the game UI, Layer 2 is the cheat UI.

    How Client-side AC "tries" to detect ESP
    Most Client-side AC's have a signature for the most commonly used overlays that it will run into. Fraps, ShadowPlay, CPU-Z, GPU-Z, TeamSpeak Overlay, Overwolf etc. So when the cheat tries to piggyback one of these it can detect a signature change.

    The main approach to catching an ESP user is to "attempt" to capture a screenshot. The problem with this approach is that most cheats hook into the AC and listen for the screenshot request. The AC has to call the process that will take the screenshot, so when it's called you'd simply disable all cheat based UI's.... Nothing to see, Nothing to detect.

    ESP is knowing the exact location of someone "visually" when you shouldn't. How would you, as an ac engineer, know for a fact that someone was using ESP? By seeing the mouse data (reticle) track and or snapping to the spatial position of a player through a solid surface.

    If you provide a player with a target close enough, that could represent an imminent threat, they'll look at it every time. They'll snap the mouse to line up a shot, thus focus on the target. What happens when an enemy player is spotted in BF1? In general, those that see the apple look at it. Doesn't matter if it's in a building, behind a wall etc.
    In Battlefield there are many ways to know if a player is nearby without actually seeing them.
    • Audibly: callouts, Footsteps, weapons fire, object interaction etc.
    • Visually: 3D spotting (manually, Flair), 2D spotting (minimap), object interaction (door/window animations etc)

    Knowing this, any detection approach would have to consider those variables as the potential giveaways the player used to lock in on the target. The only solution that I've been able to come up with is to honey pot the suspicious player with a bogus player object.

    Have the server send updates to the player that include a fake player... essentially an NPC. Only this player receives the NPC info. Have the NPC's position be on the other side of a wall, prone, parallel with it. No audible or visual clues and no way for it to be spotted by either the player spamming Q or any other player (because they don't have the NPC data).

    If the player is running ESP, the cheat will highlight the NPC, and the user will react to the highlight. His client->server update will have his mouse all over the NPC's spatial coordinates. Do this a few times in different scenarios (in a building crouched/prone in a corner) for consistency checks.

    Ethically this approach could be considered dirty pool to the nines. Legal implications I have zero clue about, but I'm sure EA's team could whip something up to get it through.
    Plus side of things it's Server-Side managed, the client, nor client-side AC will have any clue it's running. It's pretty light weight. If it's eventually detected by cheats, the coders will have to start tracking a lot more game data and alter their approach. Not trusting server data adds to their scrutinization burden. Long term this approach could be updated to perfectly emulate an actual player. At that point no cheat could technically detect or scrutinize for it. In the eyes of the cheat author it would make server data completely untrustworthy.
  • Hypnotic-eye
    12 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    Yeah I did not play for a month and now this total Hax fest BS .......... never again spending a dime
  • 287martin
    227 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Revonedriver you should apply for Anti cheat developer job at Dice think they advertising for one
  • Rev0verDrive
    6760 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    287martin wrote:
    Revonedriver you should apply for Anti cheat developer job at Dice think they advertising for one

    Not really interested, and my C/C++ is a bit rusty. Beyond that, the industry itself isn't interested in SSAC. The cost burden is the issue at hand.
  • 287martin
    227 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Surely the cost is worth it ? Prevents the game the brand etc being dragged through the mud. EA and Dice aren't short of cash they should focus more on player experience. Stunning visuals is not the only thing that makes a great game
  • Rev0verDrive
    6760 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    287martin wrote:
    Surely the cost is worth it ? Prevents the game the brand etc being dragged through the mud. EA and Dice aren't short of cash they should focus more on player experience. Stunning visuals is not the only thing that makes a great game

    I agree. To me the cost is worth it long term. Some of the cost could be pushed to the rsp.

    As I've stated previously, I don't see too many that I would outright call cheaters. Way too many other variables & issues that look like cheats, but aren't. Bottom line though I do believe the game and players deserve a proper AC.
  • Jinko_itx
    768 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Jinko_itx wrote: »
    actually cheats have evolved to more sophisticated dark-tech, that video is its "child" to how cheats are now made, and its unfortunate because theres a lot of people that are naive to the fact that they exist in bf1, ...calling lag and whever else to tell themselves that's its not bad at all. this thread is a very good example of it as in the beginning of this thread, many you will see saying that its not cheats, and over time has proven to be so. the problem will only get worse if companies like EA do not take bull by the horn in so many words.
    Hehe, I see you made the same mistake as some of the commenters of that video.
    Actually, that video shows how the anti-cheat works and the person you see playing is cheating on purpose to demonstrate how the anti-cheat is able to recognize suspicious behavior, you can see it in the upper left corner how notifications appear every time it detects something suspicious and a score calculated to determine if it's a cheater playing or a legit player.
    It's really awesome and sad and the same time how just one guy with programming skills can do a much better job on anti-cheat than an entire team of AAA game developers.

    oh I saw it in the corner how it was detecting all the cheats he was using, but I was just stating that at that time, those types of cheats were already available, I can just imagine what has been accomplished lately, I'm just hoping that there are more advanced detectors (like the one in the top corner in that video for instance that could be implemented to deal with the demented (you like what I did there? lol)
This discussion has been closed.