I hate to admit it but there are cheaters in this game currently

Comments

  • g0merpile
    508 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited April 24
    hard to grasp how many cheaters there are, *removed* are the worst cheaters, this is the worst ever game of cheating I have ever seen. Free fall cheat fest. EA has failed on this one
    Post edited by StarscreamUK on
  • Red_Label_Scotch
    1232 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    These topics get raised with the developers.  They answer very few questions about hacking, and the very little they have said, I have put in here.
  • TheyHaveScissors
    565 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    At least PUBG communicates clearly on this subject.

    Where is EA games at?
  • parkingbrake
    3202 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Th3PetrolHead said:
    Wouldn't you like to think that the latest triple A fps shooter would include at the very least a clientside anticheat and support RSP! Absolutely mind boggling poor decisions to leave out both which are the core fundamentals in any half decent modern game. There is no anticheat in BF V. FF is a statistic analysis tool and a poor one at that. There is zero clientside ac in BF V and it appears as though there is nothing server side. Looks like there are a couple of people in a room handing out the odd ban. Nothing more. No stats. No naming of cheaters.. Easy to rebuy a new account/game.. the whole thing is a mess. If they wanted to clear up the cheating there are two easy steps to take that would go a long way in restoring faith amongst the loyal fans and rebuilding support, not to mention EA would be reaping the rewards from massive sales.




    Could you give me an example of a "clientside" anti-cheat currently in uses which has proven to be effective?  Are you referring to anti-cheats which try to detect hacks on user computers?

    Fortnite uses two anti-cheats, BattleEye and EAC, and as you can see on that game's forums there are players claiming Fortnite has no anti-cheat at all which they know because that game is riddled with cheaters.  PUBG has three anti-cheats including BattleEye, and the worst cheating I've ever seen in an online game.

    Could EA do far more to suppress cheating?  Absolutely, at times they almost seem to roll out the welcome mat for hack users with their promotional offers that allow cheaters to spoil games with no fear of any consequences beyond losing a cheap and anonymous account.  But let's not pretend that using a different anti-cheat system would have some instant magical result.  If that were possible then Fortnite and PUBG would be cheat-free, and they certainly are not.  I think the problem with cheating in BFV is that EA is doing the bare minimum, the PC platform is no longer important enough to them to make any effort beyond that.  I won't be surprised if BF6 isn't even released on PC.

    Well you've basically highlighted one of the most game breaking flaws in BF V. Other games use 2-3 anticheats. BF V has NONE! FF is not an anticheat in the same way EAC and BE are. I would be far happier if I knew BF V had at least one or two 3rd party deep and random scanning clientside acs. You could be sure we'd have many bans then. Cheat free.. never but it's the bare minimum standard needed. EA/Dice have failed with providing security to their game despite stating BF V would lead the way in the anticheat dept. Wouldn't one or more acs work better than having nothing?!! They might as well leave the keys in the door..
    PUBG has three anti cheats and had banned over 13 million accounts (one in every four sold) when I stopped playing that game, and it still had a serious cheating problem.  Fortnite is similar, multiple anti-cheats, millions of bans, and the hack users are still there.  So if the end result is the same, why single out FF for criticism when EAC and BattleEye do no better?  There are guys who sound just like you in Fortnite forums claiming that game has no anti-cheat at all, ditto with PUBG, and they're no more right than you.

    Nor does your claim that FF isn't a real anti-cheat stand up, many anti-cheat systems have used stats analysis to spot suspicious players, FF adds live observation to that once a player is flagged (did you know that?).  When we had live admins it was stats analysis by services like Cheat-O-Meter and iStats and BF4DB that gave admins the info they needed to catch cheaters, why would it suddenly be worthless now?  Your belief that there are anti-cheats which can scan a user's computer and detect hack ignores that today's subscription hacks are not installed on a user's PC, they're injected after the game launches, there is nothing on a hard drive to find.  And you're ignoring that hack user forums have seen many complaints about cheaters being banned by FF in BFV, so whether you believe it or not, cheaters are being banned from this game.  But since EA doesn't stop them from getting a new account and using the same name they can be back in no time with the same player tag as before.  We even see people posting here complaining about unfair bans--why is that happening if there is no anti-cheat and no bans?

    The real problem is EA does nothing to verify the identity of game purchasers, and nothing to keep banned players from buying the game again (actually I think they're okay with banned players buying copy after copy--a sale is a sale).  They haven't followed the lead of other game publishers in suing hack sellers either.  And they have promotional offers which make it cheap and easy for cheaters to get anonymous accounts and replace them if and when they're banned, the notorious Game Time promotion being a good example--it flooded BF4 with cheaters until EA finally confined GT players to "Official" servers which were already a sewer.  The PC platform just isn't important to EA anymore, so they're not going to spend more money trying to suppress cheating on a platform they no longer care about.  I wish that were not the case, but that grim reality is staring us in the face.  All legit players hate that situation, but pretending that things would change if only EA would use EAC or BattleEye is delusional and the proof is in the games that do use those services and aren't any better off than BFV.  
  • REZASRN
    3 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    playing 3 round of fire storm and  every round cheaters say hi and made head shot to us  . Thanks poor EA . 
    also thank DICE Trainees for buglfield.
  • MachoFantast1c0
    2015 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited April 24
    First game back to BF1, and a blatant aimbotter on B2B. 13k kills with scout, headshot ratio between 70-100, including infantry and carbine variants. Around 3KPM across the board. Complete *violation* on other classes. Three days of BF4 before this, ran into as many cheaters on community servers. This franchise is at least consistent.
    Post edited by StarscreamUK on
  • -Antares65z
    1618 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited April 24
    First game back to BF1, and a blatant aimbotter on B2B. 13k kills with scout, headshot ratio between 70-100, including infantry and carbine variants. Around 3KPM across the board. Complete *violation* on other classes. Three days of BF4 before this, ran into as many cheaters on community servers. This franchise is at least consistent.
    I'm not sure what to play anymore. BC2, BF3 and BF4 are riddled with cheaters. The same as BF1 and BF5.  
    Post edited by StarscreamUK on
  • FierceBrosnan007
    1002 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    comment missing again.... @mod plz. 
  • FierceBrosnan007
    1002 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Th3PetrolHead said:
    Wouldn't you like to think that the latest triple A fps shooter would include at the very least a clientside anticheat and support RSP! Absolutely mind boggling poor decisions to leave out both which are the core fundamentals in any half decent modern game. There is no anticheat in BF V. FF is a statistic analysis tool and a poor one at that. There is zero clientside ac in BF V and it appears as though there is nothing server side. Looks like there are a couple of people in a room handing out the odd ban. Nothing more. No stats. No naming of cheaters.. Easy to rebuy a new account/game.. the whole thing is a mess. If they wanted to clear up the cheating there are two easy steps to take that would go a long way in restoring faith amongst the loyal fans and rebuilding support, not to mention EA would be reaping the rewards from massive sales.




    Could you give me an example of a "clientside" anti-cheat currently in uses which has proven to be effective?  Are you referring to anti-cheats which try to detect hacks on user computers?

    Fortnite uses two anti-cheats, BattleEye and EAC, and as you can see on that game's forums there are players claiming Fortnite has no anti-cheat at all which they know because that game is riddled with cheaters.  PUBG has three anti-cheats including BattleEye, and the worst cheating I've ever seen in an online game.

    Could EA do far more to suppress cheating?  Absolutely, at times they almost seem to roll out the welcome mat for hack users with their promotional offers that allow cheaters to spoil games with no fear of any consequences beyond losing a cheap and anonymous account.  But let's not pretend that using a different anti-cheat system would have some instant magical result.  If that were possible then Fortnite and PUBG would be cheat-free, and they certainly are not.  I think the problem with cheating in BFV is that EA is doing the bare minimum, the PC platform is no longer important enough to them to make any effort beyond that.  I won't be surprised if BF6 isn't even released on PC.

    Well you've basically highlighted one of the most game breaking flaws in BF V. Other games use 2-3 anticheats. BF V has NONE! FF is not an anticheat in the same way EAC and BE are. I would be far happier if I knew BF V had at least one or two 3rd party deep and random scanning clientside acs. You could be sure we'd have many bans then. Cheat free.. never but it's the bare minimum standard needed. EA/Dice have failed with providing security to their game despite stating BF V would lead the way in the anticheat dept. Wouldn't one or more acs work better than having nothing?!! They might as well leave the keys in the door..
    PUBG has three anti cheats and had banned over 13 million accounts (one in every four sold) when I stopped playing that game, and it still had a serious cheating problem.  Fortnite is similar, multiple anti-cheats, millions of bans, and the hack users are still there.  So if the end result is the same, why single out FF for criticism when EAC and BattleEye do no better?  There are guys who sound just like you in Fortnite forums claiming that game has no anti-cheat at all, ditto with PUBG, and they're no more right than you.

    Nor does your claim that FF isn't a real anti-cheat stand up, many anti-cheat systems have used stats analysis to spot suspicious players, FF adds live observation to that once a player is flagged (did you know that?).  When we had live admins it was stats analysis by services like Cheat-O-Meter and iStats and BF4DB that gave admins the info they needed to catch cheaters, why would it suddenly be worthless now?  Your belief that there are anti-cheats which can scan a user's computer and detect hack ignores that today's subscription hacks are not installed on a user's PC, they're injected after the game launches, there is nothing on a hard drive to find.  And you're ignoring that hack user forums have seen many complaints about cheaters being banned by FF in BFV, so whether you believe it or not, cheaters are being banned from this game.  But since EA doesn't stop them from getting a new account and using the same name they can be back in no time with the same player tag as before.  We even see people posting here complaining about unfair bans--why is that happening if there is no anti-cheat and no bans?

    The real problem is EA does nothing to verify the identity of game purchasers, and nothing to keep banned players from buying the game again (actually I think they're okay with banned players buying copy after copy--a sale is a sale).  They haven't followed the lead of other game publishers in suing hack sellers either.  And they have promotional offers which make it cheap and easy for cheaters to get anonymous accounts and replace them if and when they're banned, the notorious Game Time promotion being a good example--it flooded BF4 with cheaters until EA finally confined GT players to "Official" servers which were already a sewer.  The PC platform just isn't important to EA anymore, so they're not going to spend more money trying to suppress cheating on a platform they no longer care about.  I wish that were not the case, but that grim reality is staring us in the face.  All legit players hate that situation, but pretending that things would change if only EA would use EAC or BattleEye is delusional and the proof is in the games that do use those services and aren't any better off than BFV.  
    Now imagine if PUBG didn't have those 3rd party ACs working. Imagine all those extra cheaters that would never have been banned. Imagine how bad your experience would have been then. 

    I do not get people who are happy to have the tiniest layer of protection against cheaters. Get as many ACs on board as possible. 2.. 3 .. yes better than none! FF is pathetic and nothing on par to either EAC or BE and I'm not going to dwell on the failure of an attempt at ac FF is.. a mere statistical analysis tool which seems to be off for the majority of the year! (can't even flag blatant cheaters for months on end where EAC or BE would without doubt.) The only reason cheaters get flagged is the numerous reports going in on that same player and the (3 at a guess based on the number of bans reported.) individuals sitting in an office reviewing the evidence before issuing a ban!

    Another thing I don't get is this whole attitude of the PC market not being worth the investment! What a load of !$£!!!... If EA made the right choices in the beginning and addressed/interacted with their (now dwindling) community on their own platforms, the possible revenue to be made would certainly make it a rewarding investment wouldn't you think!?. It would also boost opinions of the company which are not good if you read around the various forums. Why is it EA choose to slap the ones who built up the franchise in the face while making life easy for those who wish to ruin the enjoyment of the former. Makes no sense and spells disaster for Battlefield.

    Things need to be put right or you can say goodbye to the franchise as people decide to move on and not look back. BF V needs ACs, RSP and Dev response. The anticheat is not up to par vs other games. More anticheats = less cheaters. Adding better id verification when purchasing games would also tighten the loop. 
  • Micas99
    816 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    First game back to BF1, and a blatant aimbotter on B2B. 13k kills with scout, headshot ratio between 70-100, including infantry and carbine variants. Around 3KPM across the board. Complete *violation* on other classes. Three days of BF4 before this, ran into as many cheaters on community servers. This franchise is at least consistent.
    That's the weird thing I can quite wrap my head around when trying to figure out what sort of anti-cheat the BF games do have. Very obvious cheaters (90%+ HSKR with thousands of kills) simply do not get banned in all 3 games. Some people here have said players have claimed false FF bans. So which is it? No anti-cheat at all, or anti-cheat that doesn't ban players that rage with a bot? 

    Playing BF4 the last few weeks has been sort of surreal.. so many players with 1.2 KDs suddenly godly, and nobody gives a ****. Nobody says a thing in chat when some guy is on a rampage. The player ranks seem odd to me as well. A year ago the vast majority on a server were max rank, but now max rank is rare. I suppose it's banned players getting new accounts, or maybe the few that just want to do the gear grind again for some reason. 

    I wonder what the hell Dice is doing now. It must be weird to have a "games as a service" model when the game is shedding players. 
  • OskooI_007
    663 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I think EA likes the games as service model because they can quickly abandon games which don't do well. With premium pass they were locked into a commitment to provide a predetermined level of promised content, even if the game flopped.
  • Micas99
    816 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited April 24
    At least with BF4, we can get players banned. It only takes me a few minutes. I report a guy, a few hours later he's banned from playing on pretty much every RSP server since they use the BF4DB plugin. It's very difficult to get a player that's being subtle banned, but it's something. Not only does EA/Dice not police their own games, they took away the ability for the community to do it. Pathetic.

    [image removed - player name is visible thus violating the N&S rule]
  • parkingbrake
    3202 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Micas99 said:
    First game back to BF1, and a blatant aimbotter on B2B. 13k kills with scout, headshot ratio between 70-100, including infantry and carbine variants. Around 3KPM across the board. Complete *violation* on other classes. Three days of BF4 before this, ran into as many cheaters on community servers. This franchise is at least consistent.
    That's the weird thing I can quite wrap my head around when trying to figure out what sort of anti-cheat the BF games do have. Very obvious cheaters (90%+ HSKR with thousands of kills) simply do not get banned in all 3 games. Some people here have said players have claimed false FF bans. So which is it? No anti-cheat at all, or anti-cheat that doesn't ban players that rage with a bot? 

    Playing BF4 the last few weeks has been sort of surreal.. so many players with 1.2 KDs suddenly godly, and nobody gives a ****. Nobody says a thing in chat when some guy is on a rampage. The player ranks seem odd to me as well. A year ago the vast majority on a server were max rank, but now max rank is rare. I suppose it's banned players getting new accounts, or maybe the few that just want to do the gear grind again for some reason. 

    I wonder what the hell Dice is doing now. It must be weird to have a "games as a service" model when the game is shedding players. 
    The flood of new accounts is interesting, isn't it.  Either Firestorm has brought in a lot of new players and they're leaking over to other modes, or there are a lot of folks who have had to open new accounts for some reason, LOL.  Last night there was a Rank 3 at the top of the scoreboard, when it was my turn to be killed by him it was one of those, "Whoa, that didn't seem right" moments.  But with this game's network performance being as odd as it is, it can he hard to know if a player did something suspicious or the game just decided to stack up his actions and deliver them to me all at once.

    I saw something in passing about an EA rep on Twitter saying they'd banned more players in BFV than they did in BF1 at the same point in time, way more.  If that is true then maybe we're seeing banned players with new accounts, which really makes me wish game publishers would do more to ID customers to make it harder for them to buy another account if they're banned.  I can open an account with an online retailer who has never heard of me before, and in seconds they know if they're going to ship me valuable merchandise.  But a multi-billion-dollar company like EA can't figure out a reasonably effective way to ID game buyers?  Too funny.
  • StarscreamUK
    7254 postsMember, Moderator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Moderator
    What would you class as a reasonably effective way?
  • Micas99
    816 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    The image that you removed from my previous post did not have the player name visible. I edited the image to remove it. I posted it to show how quickly I can get a player effectively banned in BF4, in contrast to BF1 and BF5.

    To the point of ID-ing customers, I don't think it's up to parkingbrake to determine what the effective way to ID a player would be. That would be on the publisher. Presumably they would have more expertise than we.
  • Red_Label_Scotch
    1232 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    What would you class as a reasonably effective way?
    I can think of some things I have heard.

    0.  Effectively implement a hardware ban.
      (Not answering your question, though)

    Tie to US or national DL# or ID#.

    Intrusive?  Yeah.  But answer me this:

    You (whoever you are) are here because you like what BFV is, or what you see that it *could* be.

    You probably paid either USD $30 or $60 for this game.

    How much more would you have paid, to be *guaranteed* a "virtually cheat free game."  By virtually cheat free, I mean, under one half of one percent of hackers get to play, and they are banned within 3 rounds.

    How much would I have paid?  In retrospect?  I paid $60.  For what I described above, I would pay $300.00.

  • -Antares65z
    1618 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    What would you class as a reasonably effective way?
    I can think of some things I have heard.

    0.  Effectively implement a hardware ban.
      (Not answering your question, though)

    Tie to US or national DL# or ID#.

    Intrusive?  Yeah.  But answer me this:

    You (whoever you are) are here because you like what BFV is, or what you see that it *could* be.

    You probably paid either USD $30 or $60 for this game.

    How much more would you have paid, to be *guaranteed* a "virtually cheat free game."  By virtually cheat free, I mean, under one half of one percent of hackers get to play, and they are banned within 3 rounds.

    How much would I have paid?  In retrospect?  I paid $60.  For what I described above, I would pay $300.00.

    For what we were given with BF5 out of the gate, I would pay $80 for a cheat free game. If there was a Premium option that guaranteed extra content, that being primarily extra maps/weapons, I'd pay $120. 
  • Micas99
    816 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    So what you guys are saying is that if EA/Dice actually delivered what they should have, you'd pay extra. 
  • g0merpile
    508 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Micas99 said:
    First game back to BF1, and a blatant aimbotter on B2B. 13k kills with scout, headshot ratio between 70-100, including infantry and carbine variants. Around 3KPM across the board. Complete *violation* on other classes. Three days of BF4 before this, ran into as many cheaters on community servers. This franchise is at least consistent.
    That's the weird thing I can quite wrap my head around when trying to figure out what sort of anti-cheat the BF games do have. Very obvious cheaters (90%+ HSKR with thousands of kills) simply do not get banned in all 3 games. Some people here have said players have claimed false FF bans. So which is it? No anti-cheat at all, or anti-cheat that doesn't ban players that rage with a bot? 

    Playing BF4 the last few weeks has been sort of surreal.. so many players with 1.2 KDs suddenly godly, and nobody gives a ****. Nobody says a thing in chat when some guy is on a rampage. The player ranks seem odd to me as well. A year ago the vast majority on a server were max rank, but now max rank is rare. I suppose it's banned players getting new accounts, or maybe the few that just want to do the gear grind again for some reason. 

    I wonder what the hell Dice is doing now. It must be weird to have a "games as a service" model when the game is shedding players. 

    If EA would allow vote ban for cheaters. This would only be for the round they cheated in.
This discussion has been closed.