Battlefield 5 anti-cheat

Comments

  • Farsight_02
    303 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    Sounds like it also could not be obvious or it may not be a cheater. We already have seen people falsely accuse someone for using an aimbot based off of a video clip in another thread.....maybe this is just another example.

    Or your person could be cheating....there is really only one person who would really know.....
    This particular cheater had gone from below mediocre to above pro level in a single day. His accuracy went through the roof and beyond all credibility. I'm talking about frequent 80 to 90% accuracy with scouts weapons, 35 to 40% with LMG's and SMG's, 50 to 60% accuracy with SLR's. That is obvious aimbot, no legit player can get accuracy scores like that so frequently, maybe once in many matches if lucky but not every other game. Spectating also showed his aim frequently locking onto enemies and pre-aiming too accurate far too often at enemies that weren't spotted beforehand. I had expected FF to catch an obvious aimbotter like this in no time, but still to this day the cheater is playing.
    I have 20 years of experience in fps game, so not to boast, but I have a pretty accurate sense of knowing when something's off, and 9 out of 10 times I do manage to rule out that I could be wrong about a suspicious player.


    Apparently for some cheats, they require a passport. Sounds like shady stuff just to access less used cheats.

    This is correct. Those are the expensive paid hacks offered through invite-only. These hacks are typically never caught, because the chances of someone leaking the source code is very slim due to such precautions that hack sellers of this kind take. If only the anti-cheat side did the same. I'd offer my real life ID for a game account if it made cheating that much more difficult and risky due to a lifetime ban if you get caught. Even valve did this already in china for CS:GO players.

    A relatively high percentage of twitch streamers use these type of hacks, they get these offers from the hack writers and subscribe. Some of them have gotten famous with many people believing that they're legit. Paying close attention to their aim however will reveal that they are using at least some kind of aim assist or an aimbot configure with a miss percentage to mislead players who lack knowledge about how highly customizable aimbots have become into thinking that they aren't using cheats.

  • 8Ace_AmAtoL
    45 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member

    A relatively high percentage of twitch streamers use these type of hacks, they get these offers from the hack writers and subscribe. Some of them have gotten famous with many people believing that they're legit. Paying close attention to their aim however will reveal that they are using at least some kind of aim assist or an aimbot configure with a miss percentage to mislead players who lack knowledge about how highly customizable aimbots have become into thinking that they aren't using cheats.

    That was what I was thinking, to have to give your passport details to the hack producers, then that particular hack is going to be the Gold Standard of hacks.

    I can fully imagine streamers using these top end cheats, and I have my suspicions also.

    With that level of coding I guess you are very unlikely to get called out.

    It's funny what you can see if you slow stuff down to 0.25 speed though.

  • Micas99
    390 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    A relatively high percentage of twitch streamers use these type of hacks, they get these offers from the hack writers and subscribe. Some of them have gotten famous with many people believing that they're legit. Paying close attention to their aim however will reveal that they are using at least some kind of aim assist or an aimbot configure with a miss percentage to mislead players who lack knowledge about how highly customizable aimbots have become into thinking that they aren't using cheats.

    That's absolutely spot on, but for some streamers you don't even need to pay attention to their aim. There was one very popular female streamer playing CS:GO very well. The donations were coming steady, then she went to switch to some other app and accidentally brought up the cheat client.. and it was being record by someone and it ended up on youtube. It's hilarious to watch the stream (with a camera on her) as she tries to explain that it wasn't a cheat client, while the viewers were both screaming at her and laughing. Use some of those keywords on yt and laugh watching it. She's young, attractive, had a huge following, and cheating like mad. Glorious.

    Then there was another guy playing overwatch comp, and a guy on the other team down and the pro-player tried to pull his cross hair off that guy and it kept snapping back as he kept pulling. Dude got banned from comp.. Those comp players are shady as hell and it forces the organizers to try and account for any method by which they could be cheating.

    Those are games that have way better AC than BF games, and people are cheating like mad in them.. and people think the cheating population in BF is small? Please. There's probably no way to reasonably secure a PC game. Closed systems are really the only way to be reasonably fair, even though, apparently, a few have circumvented it somehow.. or at least some people have claimed it's possible.

    So.. playing BF on PC, regardless if BF4, BFBC, BF1, BFV, any PC MP game, there's going to be cheaters.. and I think a lot of them. It's just human nature. Many people cheat in anything that is competitive, from Lance Armstrong, to twitch streamers, to students, to the average joe playing a BF game. That causes people who would otherwise play fair to find ways to cheat to actually level the playing field. Viscous circle.

  • MachoFantast1c0
    927 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    Nowadays daily FF ban numbers have stabilized to low tens, maybe around fifty temp and permanent bans total. So yes, there are confirmed cheaters, but compared to daily player figures it is such a small percentage that you rarely see them in-game. And those you do, usually get fairly quickly banned (stop playing). A few have been banned live on my server.
    .
    In addition to these, you have a small number of pretty evident cheaters that seem to avoid bans perpetually. Perhaps these are those subscription cheats. However, in my experience they are very rare, and when I see one I switch servers (I keep a list). Sure it sucks, but it's a small inconvenience in a casual game. For competitive mode such as Incursions it would be a totally different matter, which remains to be seen how it plays out.
    .
    Lately it has been quite rare to see suspicious players; either they are clearly cheating or they appear completely normal. I take this to mean that FF does a good job of keeping the non-premium cheats at bay. I'd hate to such a cynical and pessimistic outlook on the matter as it surely detracts from ones ability to enjoy the game.
  • I-Soldat-I
    1359 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    The fewer cheaters in BF1 I think has more to do with it's declining popularity, when BF V Launches, then we will see if FF is effective or not.
  • Phat_Helmet
    2057 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    This game will be loaded with cheaters like BF1 and Battlefront 2.
  • lllPeligrolll
    536 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    Micas99 wrote: »
    A relatively high percentage of twitch streamers use these type of hacks, they get these offers from the hack writers and subscribe. Some of them have gotten famous with many people believing that they're legit. Paying close attention to their aim however will reveal that they are using at least some kind of aim assist or an aimbot configure with a miss percentage to mislead players who lack knowledge about how highly customizable aimbots have become into thinking that they aren't using cheats.

    That's absolutely spot on, but for some streamers you don't even need to pay attention to their aim. There was one very popular female streamer playing CS:GO very well. The donations were coming steady, then she went to switch to some other app and accidentally brought up the cheat client.. and it was being record by someone and it ended up on youtube. It's hilarious to watch the stream (with a camera on her) as she tries to explain that it wasn't a cheat client, while the viewers were both screaming at her and laughing. Use some of those keywords on yt and laugh watching it. She's young, attractive, had a huge following, and cheating like mad. Glorious.

    Then there was another guy playing overwatch comp, and a guy on the other team down and the pro-player tried to pull his cross hair off that guy and it kept snapping back as he kept pulling. Dude got banned from comp.. Those comp players are shady as hell and it forces the organizers to try and account for any method by which they could be cheating.

    Those are games that have way better AC than BF games, and people are cheating like mad in them.. and people think the cheating population in BF is small? Please. There's probably no way to reasonably secure a PC game. Closed systems are really the only way to be reasonably fair, even though, apparently, a few have circumvented it somehow.. or at least some people have claimed it's possible.

    So.. playing BF on PC, regardless if BF4, BFBC, BF1, BFV, any PC MP game, there's going to be cheaters.. and I think a lot of them. It's just human nature. Many people cheat in anything that is competitive, from Lance Armstrong, to twitch streamers, to students, to the average joe playing a BF game. That causes people who would otherwise play fair to find ways to cheat to actually level the playing field. Viscous circle.

    Popular is an overstatement. Btw she's still on twitch. She changed her username. Couldn't believe it.
  • GRIZZ11283
    4658 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Anybody thinking cheats can be stopped, you're deluded.
    Anti cheat systems are always on the back foot, they can't make a counter until the cheat is being used, then when they do get a counter, the next version of the cheat is released and it starts again.
    There is no way of stopping them, it's a battle that anti cheat can't fully win.

    Rumour has it there's no cheats on console, if cheating is as bad as some make out, you have a solution.
  • alienstout
    40 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    GRIZZ11283 wrote: »
    Rumour has it there's no cheats on console, if cheating is as bad as some make out, you have a solution.

    And Microsoft is exploring adding keyboard/mouse support to Xbox... Of course would that be fair to use M/K and aim-assist? Yikes.

  • GRIZZ11283
    4658 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    alienstout wrote: »
    GRIZZ11283 wrote: »
    Rumour has it there's no cheats on console, if cheating is as bad as some make out, you have a solution.

    And Microsoft is exploring adding keyboard/mouse support to Xbox... Of course would that be fair to use M/K and aim-assist? Yikes.

    Zzzzz, save it for another thread, nothing to do with what's being discussed.
  • alienstout
    40 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    GRIZZ11283 wrote: »
    alienstout wrote: »
    GRIZZ11283 wrote: »
    Rumour has it there's no cheats on console, if cheating is as bad as some make out, you have a solution.

    And Microsoft is exploring adding keyboard/mouse support to Xbox... Of course would that be fair to use M/K and aim-assist? Yikes.

    Zzzzz, save it for another thread, nothing to do with what's being discussed.

    Of course it does, you opened the door with your comment about no hacks in consoles.

    Bringing it back to AC in BF, vote kick might help.
  • GRIZZ11283
    4658 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    alienstout wrote: »
    GRIZZ11283 wrote: »
    alienstout wrote: »
    GRIZZ11283 wrote: »
    Rumour has it there's no cheats on console, if cheating is as bad as some make out, you have a solution.

    And Microsoft is exploring adding keyboard/mouse support to Xbox... Of course would that be fair to use M/K and aim-assist? Yikes.

    Zzzzz, save it for another thread, nothing to do with what's being discussed.

    Of course it does, you opened the door with your comment about no hacks in consoles.

    Bringing it back to AC in BF, vote kick might help.

    So M/K is a hack now :lol:
  • warslag
    558 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    As I said before, EA likes FairFight because it uses in-game evidence to prove a player is cheating.

    This removes any embarrassment to EA from a ban issued on the basis of detected client-side cheating which the player could then dispute.

    You can see from this Reddit post that the appeal of FairFight to game developers is the way it avoids 'ambiguous' bans.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/Rainbow6/comments/4476qr/how_fairfight_works_what_it_does_and_what_it/

    "What is FairFight?
    FairFight by GameBlocks is a real time cheat detection and suppression system. FairFight is non-invasive, customizable and engine agnostic. It does not reside on the player's computer and does not examine the players' devices or perpetually look for the latest hacks. FairFight uses our proprietary GameChanger™ rule engine along with advanced database structures to evaluate players' real-time gameplay actions. FairFight combines algorithmic models that assess an array of statistical markers to identify possible cheating, and cross-checks these measurements using objective gameplay reporting to Make it a FairFight™ for everyone.

    How is FairFight different from Punkbuster and Valve Anti-Cheat?
    The most popular anti-cheat programs operate like an antivirus program, searching each players' computer for known strings of hack code. Since these programs scan memory and other components of your customer's computer, they not only raise privacy and security concerns, but they are also constantly 'fighting the last war'.

    FairFight uses a different and, we believe, far better approach. FairFight receives game play data from the game server and focuses on the gameplay itself to determine if a player is cheating."

    The only way you can know if a game's anti-cheat is working is if someone can genuinely prove they are getting away with it. Nobody seems to be doing that so FairFight must be working.

    If you feel the game is full of cheating then it must be that the game itself or your system is at fault.

    I still have more faith in PunkBuster. But that's just me.
  • tgryudfgyu
    13 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield Member
    edited July 12
    warslag wrote: »
    As I said before, EA likes FairFight because it uses in-game evidence to prove a player is cheating.

    This removes any embarrassment to EA from a ban issued on the basis of detected client-side cheating which the player could then dispute.

    You can see from this Reddit post that the appeal of FairFight to game developers is the way it avoids 'ambiguous' bans.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/Rainbow6/comments/4476qr/how_fairfight_works_what_it_does_and_what_it/

    "What is FairFight?
    FairFight by GameBlocks is a real time cheat detection and suppression system. FairFight is non-invasive, customizable and engine agnostic. It does not reside on the player's computer and does not examine the players' devices or perpetually look for the latest hacks. FairFight uses our proprietary GameChanger™ rule engine along with advanced database structures to evaluate players' real-time gameplay actions. FairFight combines algorithmic models that assess an array of statistical markers to identify possible cheating, and cross-checks these measurements using objective gameplay reporting to Make it a FairFight™ for everyone.

    How is FairFight different from Punkbuster and Valve Anti-Cheat?
    The most popular anti-cheat programs operate like an antivirus program, searching each players' computer for known strings of hack code. Since these programs scan memory and other components of your customer's computer, they not only raise privacy and security concerns, but they are also constantly 'fighting the last war'.

    FairFight uses a different and, we believe, far better approach. FairFight receives game play data from the game server and focuses on the gameplay itself to determine if a player is cheating."

    The only way you can know if a game's anti-cheat is working is if someone can genuinely prove they are getting away with it. Nobody seems to be doing that so FairFight must be working.

    If you feel the game is full of cheating then it must be that the game itself or your system is at fault.

    I still have more faith in PunkBuster. But that's just me.

    If you have more faith in Punkbuster then you really don't understand how it works. Punkbuster is straight up garbage that is only good at catching public cheats. They have to rely on people leaking any of the private or subscription based hacks to catch them. If someone writes their own hack and doesn't release it there is basically no way it will ever get detected by Punkbuster. That's because it can't actively find new cheats on it's own (a common misconception) - it can only find what it has been told to find.
    Post edited by tgryudfgyu on
  • lllPeligrolll
    536 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    warslag wrote: »
    As I said before, EA likes FairFight because it uses in-game evidence to prove a player is cheating.

    This removes any embarrassment to EA from a ban issued on the basis of detected client-side cheating which the player could then dispute.

    You can see from this Reddit post that the appeal of FairFight to game developers is the way it avoids 'ambiguous' bans.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/Rainbow6/comments/4476qr/how_fairfight_works_what_it_does_and_what_it/

    "What is FairFight?
    FairFight by GameBlocks is a real time cheat detection and suppression system. FairFight is non-invasive, customizable and engine agnostic. It does not reside on the player's computer and does not examine the players' devices or perpetually look for the latest hacks. FairFight uses our proprietary GameChanger™ rule engine along with advanced database structures to evaluate players' real-time gameplay actions. FairFight combines algorithmic models that assess an array of statistical markers to identify possible cheating, and cross-checks these measurements using objective gameplay reporting to Make it a FairFight™ for everyone.

    How is FairFight different from Punkbuster and Valve Anti-Cheat?
    The most popular anti-cheat programs operate like an antivirus program, searching each players' computer for known strings of hack code. Since these programs scan memory and other components of your customer's computer, they not only raise privacy and security concerns, but they are also constantly 'fighting the last war'.

    FairFight uses a different and, we believe, far better approach. FairFight receives game play data from the game server and focuses on the gameplay itself to determine if a player is cheating."

    The only way you can know if a game's anti-cheat is working is if someone can genuinely prove they are getting away with it. Nobody seems to be doing that so FairFight must be working.

    If you feel the game is full of cheating then it must be that the game itself or your system is at fault.

    I still have more faith in PunkBuster. But that's just me.



    Why do you have more faith in punkbuster? Punkbuster doesn't catch anything. Their last title was Hardline. No developer is seeking out punkbuster anymore.
  • SkilletBurn
    324 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    If I may answer.

    FF doesn't check files on your computer (client side). It also makes detecting some hacks nearly impossible. Like ESP (if done intelligently), or percent based aim adjustment, or really a lot of non-obvious client side exploits/hacks.

    ESP draws a wireframe box around other players in a game, as long as you don't "randomly" shoot through walls, track people that you don't have Line-of-sight on, and things like that. It's unlikely that ESP hackers can be detected.

    Percent based aim adjustment is sort of like aim assist. Most basic aimbots will snap to a players head/body and track them, allowing for effort free aiming. This gets detected by FF eventually. However, percent based aim adjustment only moves your cursor a little bit, allowing you to be more accurate when you use your twitch muscles in a firefight. This is more difficult for FF to detect since it could very well be player skill and it doesn't throw off your statistics that much.

    FF is a good, non-invasive system, but doesn't detect client side cheats. PunkBuster detects client side cheats. In its day, PB had its own problems of some false detects, but it also put a big hurt on banning caught cheaters and made it a pain for cheat developers to stay a step ahead.

    So yeah, I prefer PunkBuster or whatever the best client side cheat detector that's available today. And if FF can be run along side it, then even better.
  • warslag
    558 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    warslag wrote: »
    As I said before, EA likes FairFight because it uses in-game evidence to prove a player is cheating.

    This removes any embarrassment to EA from a ban issued on the basis of detected client-side cheating which the player could then dispute.

    You can see from this Reddit post that the appeal of FairFight to game developers is the way it avoids 'ambiguous' bans.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/Rainbow6/comments/4476qr/how_fairfight_works_what_it_does_and_what_it/

    "What is FairFight?
    FairFight by GameBlocks is a real time cheat detection and suppression system. FairFight is non-invasive, customizable and engine agnostic. It does not reside on the player's computer and does not examine the players' devices or perpetually look for the latest hacks. FairFight uses our proprietary GameChanger™ rule engine along with advanced database structures to evaluate players' real-time gameplay actions. FairFight combines algorithmic models that assess an array of statistical markers to identify possible cheating, and cross-checks these measurements using objective gameplay reporting to Make it a FairFight™ for everyone.

    How is FairFight different from Punkbuster and Valve Anti-Cheat?
    The most popular anti-cheat programs operate like an antivirus program, searching each players' computer for known strings of hack code. Since these programs scan memory and other components of your customer's computer, they not only raise privacy and security concerns, but they are also constantly 'fighting the last war'.

    FairFight uses a different and, we believe, far better approach. FairFight receives game play data from the game server and focuses on the gameplay itself to determine if a player is cheating."

    The only way you can know if a game's anti-cheat is working is if someone can genuinely prove they are getting away with it. Nobody seems to be doing that so FairFight must be working.

    If you feel the game is full of cheating then it must be that the game itself or your system is at fault.

    I still have more faith in PunkBuster. But that's just me.



    Why do you have more faith in punkbuster? Punkbuster doesn't catch anything. Their last title was Hardline. No developer is seeking out punkbuster anymore.

    I think PunkBuster is more thorough. PunkBuster tries to eradicate cheating completely from a game. I think it takes a more moral stance against cheating than FairFight in that it is designed to take a 'zero tolerance' type approach to cheating.

    This is what FairFight says..

    "In order that highly skilled players are not erroneously flagged as cheats, FairFight uses Server Side Cheat Detection (SSCD) to cross-compare results. FairFight's SSCD monitors the game state in real time, scanning gameplay data of your choice for events and conditions which are not possible (or that are exceedingly improbable) to achieve without the use of hacks. For example, in a given first person shooter it may be impossible for a weapon to kill (or even hit) a player over 200 yards. When FairFight sees this occur it automatically records it as a validation of any anomalous AAPS findings. With the validation event in place, FairFight will take any number of actions that you have selected, and it will do so when you want it to (immediately, after a delay, player join . . . .) FairFight's combined AAPS and SSCD approaches offer the best cheat detection and suppression tool in the industry - and it functions in real-time."


    But what if someone is using cheats to do the 'possible'. Are they detected? Can someone use cheats under FairFight's nose to be as good as it is 'possible' to be? Or to do something that is possible but is still cheating?

    I also wonder about FairFight's ability to catch map-hacks, wall-hacks and ESP. I know FairFight says it catches aim-bots by detecting the way they target more than one player at the same time, but what if someone creates a cheat which seems like normal play to FairFight? Is that possible?

    What I try to do now is to accept that FairFight is working, and that any suspicions I have about a cheat is caused by my PC, the game or the 'netcode', 'lag compensation', servers, 'hit-reg'.

    Having played Battlefield for probably more than 12,000 hours down the years I think I have developed an instinct for when something isn't right in terms of open play.

    At the moment my instincts are triggered all the time but I keep telling myself FairFight's doing a good job, it's just the game etc. But a nagging doubt persists.

    The other thing with FairFight was how in Rainbow Six Siege there was a lot, and I mean a lot, of cheating. Ubisoft then hired BattlEye. Cheating has nevertheless been a persistent problem in R6S and Ubisoft are trying once more to do something about it. Apparently, including legal action.

    I had more faith in PunkBuster when it was allowed to do it's job properly. I say 'do it's job properly' because I think that after some false positives and negative feedback, that PunkBuster was put on a leash some way through BF3.

    PunkBuster was dropped completely for BF1. I think this was due to negative feedback. You don't get that negative feedback with FairFight. That's the real attraction for EA. Maybe EA doesn't care if someone uses a cheat to be really good. Maybe they just want to stop the obvious cheats that do the 'impossible' to head off negative feedback about cheating. With all the problems there has been with servers maybe my instincts about cheating are triggered by technical issues with the game.
  • SpoolaZ
    145 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
    The combination PB/FF is totally useless, just look at how it works in BF4. At the moment, all cheaters have learned how to fool FF.
    And it does not even have to be FF for it, just have a K / D limit on a server, if the cheater want to stay on the server, he need to adapt to the rules.

    Can you call it for effective anti cheat, pathetic.
  • lllPeligrolll
    536 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    SpoolaZ wrote: »
    The combination PB/FF is totally useless, just look at how it works in BF4. At the moment, all cheaters have learned how to fool FF.
    And it does not even have to be FF for it, just have a K / D limit on a server, if the cheater want to stay on the server, he need to adapt to the rules.

    Can you call it for effective anti cheat, pathetic.

    more so the other way around. People have learned to fool punkbuster. You look in comparison to BF1 to BF4, similar populations, but FF works better in bf1 than it does BF4.

  • lllPeligrolll
    536 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    warslag wrote: »
    warslag wrote: »
    As I said before, EA likes FairFight because it uses in-game evidence to prove a player is cheating.

    This removes any embarrassment to EA from a ban issued on the basis of detected client-side cheating which the player could then dispute.

    You can see from this Reddit post that the appeal of FairFight to game developers is the way it avoids 'ambiguous' bans.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/Rainbow6/comments/4476qr/how_fairfight_works_what_it_does_and_what_it/

    "What is FairFight?
    FairFight by GameBlocks is a real time cheat detection and suppression system. FairFight is non-invasive, customizable and engine agnostic. It does not reside on the player's computer and does not examine the players' devices or perpetually look for the latest hacks. FairFight uses our proprietary GameChanger™ rule engine along with advanced database structures to evaluate players' real-time gameplay actions. FairFight combines algorithmic models that assess an array of statistical markers to identify possible cheating, and cross-checks these measurements using objective gameplay reporting to Make it a FairFight™ for everyone.

    How is FairFight different from Punkbuster and Valve Anti-Cheat?
    The most popular anti-cheat programs operate like an antivirus program, searching each players' computer for known strings of hack code. Since these programs scan memory and other components of your customer's computer, they not only raise privacy and security concerns, but they are also constantly 'fighting the last war'.

    FairFight uses a different and, we believe, far better approach. FairFight receives game play data from the game server and focuses on the gameplay itself to determine if a player is cheating."

    The only way you can know if a game's anti-cheat is working is if someone can genuinely prove they are getting away with it. Nobody seems to be doing that so FairFight must be working.

    If you feel the game is full of cheating then it must be that the game itself or your system is at fault.

    I still have more faith in PunkBuster. But that's just me.



    Why do you have more faith in punkbuster? Punkbuster doesn't catch anything. Their last title was Hardline. No developer is seeking out punkbuster anymore.

    I think PunkBuster is more thorough. PunkBuster tries to eradicate cheating completely from a game. I think it takes a more moral stance against cheating than FairFight in that it is designed to take a 'zero tolerance' type approach to cheating.

    This is what FairFight says..

    "In order that highly skilled players are not erroneously flagged as cheats, FairFight uses Server Side Cheat Detection (SSCD) to cross-compare results. FairFight's SSCD monitors the game state in real time, scanning gameplay data of your choice for events and conditions which are not possible (or that are exceedingly improbable) to achieve without the use of hacks. For example, in a given first person shooter it may be impossible for a weapon to kill (or even hit) a player over 200 yards. When FairFight sees this occur it automatically records it as a validation of any anomalous AAPS findings. With the validation event in place, FairFight will take any number of actions that you have selected, and it will do so when you want it to (immediately, after a delay, player join . . . .) FairFight's combined AAPS and SSCD approaches offer the best cheat detection and suppression tool in the industry - and it functions in real-time."


    But what if someone is using cheats to do the 'possible'. Are they detected? Can someone use cheats under FairFight's nose to be as good as it is 'possible' to be? Or to do something that is possible but is still cheating?

    I also wonder about FairFight's ability to catch map-hacks, wall-hacks and ESP. I know FairFight says it catches aim-bots by detecting the way they target more than one player at the same time, but what if someone creates a cheat which seems like normal play to FairFight? Is that possible?

    What I try to do now is to accept that FairFight is working, and that any suspicions I have about a cheat is caused by my PC, the game or the 'netcode', 'lag compensation', servers, 'hit-reg'.

    Having played Battlefield for probably more than 12,000 hours down the years I think I have developed an instinct for when something isn't right in terms of open play.

    At the moment my instincts are triggered all the time but I keep telling myself FairFight's doing a good job, it's just the game etc. But a nagging doubt persists.

    The other thing with FairFight was how in Rainbow Six Siege there was a lot, and I mean a lot, of cheating. Ubisoft then hired BattlEye. Cheating has nevertheless been a persistent problem in R6S and Ubisoft are trying once more to do something about it. Apparently, including legal action.

    I had more faith in PunkBuster when it was allowed to do it's job properly. I say 'do it's job properly' because I think that after some false positives and negative feedback, that PunkBuster was put on a leash some way through BF3.

    PunkBuster was dropped completely for BF1. I think this was due to negative feedback. You don't get that negative feedback with FairFight. That's the real attraction for EA. Maybe EA doesn't care if someone uses a cheat to be really good. Maybe they just want to stop the obvious cheats that do the 'impossible' to head off negative feedback about cheating. With all the problems there has been with servers maybe my instincts about cheating are triggered by technical issues with the game.

    I disagree. The reason punkbuster was dropped because it was ineffective. No other games use FF. Battlefield Hardline was the last game to do it. They don't have a good reputation and hackers have openly bragged on their platforms about compromising punkbuster. They want it to come back just as much as you do.

    I don't believe fairfight is giving the full narrative of what their anticheat can do and I also think developers have to work with anticheat developers to get an effective thing going. I think ff did a better job doing that with ea then say punk buster. I still read comments about how archaic punkbuster's updating was for previous titles. How some people had to manually update the punkbuster client. The punkbuster client is on the computer, not the server and that can easily be compromised as well.

    Your instincts are probably not wrong. There are still cheaters in BF1. Some of them togglers. I just don't think its at a point to where its an epidemic like it is in other titles. You look at all the popular shooters right now, Its probably one of the few with cheating epidemics plaguing their game.

    PUBG, CSGO, COD(PC) would all probably like to get their cheating % as low as battlefield 1.
Sign In or Register to comment.