Why won't DICE share active player counts?

13»

Comments

  • Trokey66
    8248 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    As I can only play one server at a time, as long as there are 63 players in a server, I'm happy.....

    A little short sighted for a game that lives from micro transactions isn't it?!
    What do you think will happen when the dough stops rolling in?
    UK ppl already lost their servers... and game modes keep being removed to funnel players into other queues.

    It doesn't bode well.

    And how would knowing the actual player numbers change any of that?

    None of us can change player numbers so as long as I find full games, crack on!
  • parkingbrake
    3202 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Ploodovic said:
    I’d say, it’s more surprising that they have shared the player count for their games, for as long as they have. What benefit is there, to reveal your customer numbers for your competitors to see? I don’t think we’ll see active player numbers for new games, regardless of how popular a game might be.
    A cornerstone of the advertising industry has always been, Look how popular our product is, you should be buying it too!  Or, The best selling (insert product description) in America!  Or, The Number 1 movie for the third week in a row!  Why would it be any different with online games?  Why would a game publisher not benefit from pointing out they have a hit game, how would that knowledge benefit their competitors?  It seems a lot more likely that a sales flop would get the silent treatment because it makes the publisher look bad and shareholders don't like their investment declining in value.
  • VincentNZ
    2685 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Oh you've seen a lot more hack users than that, you just didn't realize it because most of them try not to get caught so they aren't going 166-1 (like the ones who don't care about getting banned).  Based on numbers FairFight released back in BF4, it looked like around 5% of the population of that game was getting busted for using a hack, presumably some got away with it by being very conservative.  In PUBG, due to that game's explosive popularity in China, they had banned 13,000,000 of the 50,000,000 accounts sold at the point where I stopped playing that game.  Yet there were folks prepared to say that PUBG didn't really have as many hackers as was commonly believed, they looked kind of silly saying that when that game hit a ban rate of a million accounts per month....

    We don't have the numbers so i can only talk about my personal experience.
    Let's assume 5% for a minute that would mean ~2 cheaters on every 64player server...
    If that was really the case I would have quit the game for good long ago.

    Maybe we found one positive aspect of bfv's lack of popularity - it attracts less cheaters :wink:
    This just in...



    Yeah, wow. One minute into the video a console player puts up an internet poll asking something along the lines: "Are taxes too high?" At least he identifies that this could be a perceived issue, and that he at least talks about confirmation bias.  People never think this through, a video compilation of spectator footage is not proof. If you would want to form a an educated opinion you have to remove any personal feelings from it.
    And I really have to laugh every time when somebody states that most hacks are not obvious and people turn them on/off to not get caught. This makes no sense at all. If you are crap, and have to resort to cheats, why would you turn it off periodically and be crap again? Isn't it more likely that, in a game full of randomness, that where you can go 20-0 in one round and 8-20 in the next, that your average stats are catching up? If players are in doubt about a guy and that guy suddenly does not kill as fast anymore, then this is a perception issue. "Oh that guy always kills me with a headshot, must be cheater."
  • BeastofBourbon84
    162 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited June 12
    Astr0damus wrote: »
    This just in...
    Quotes from the video:
    "If there is still a big issue, I'm not it seeing it obviously on EU servers...." - Westie 5:12
    "Is BF5 struggling with an ever widening cheating / hacking epidemic? Or is it purely in the mind of the player? Well the truth is likely somewhere in between." -GGG

    Look I'm just adding my 2 cents here I'm the last guy that wants to defend cheating.
    They should all be hw banned.

    All I'm saying is that hackusations in chat are out of control but maybe bad netcode is part of the problem.
    Ppl just don't understand how they died in some situations and that leads to frustration.

    @Trokey66
    I know we can't change anything but let's just agree that "more players = good" / "less players = bad".
    But at the end of the day you're right - let's keep marching on.
  • llPhantom_Limbll
    5375 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited June 12
    Oh you've seen a lot more hack users than that, you just didn't realize it because most of them try not to get caught so they aren't going 166-1 (like the ones who don't care about getting banned).  Based on numbers FairFight released back in BF4, it looked like around 5% of the population of that game was getting busted for using a hack, presumably some got away with it by being very conservative.  In PUBG, due to that game's explosive popularity in China, they had banned 13,000,000 of the 50,000,000 accounts sold at the point where I stopped playing that game.  Yet there were folks prepared to say that PUBG didn't really have as many hackers as was commonly believed, they looked kind of silly saying that when that game hit a ban rate of a million accounts per month....

    We don't have the numbers so i can only talk about my personal experience.
    Let's assume 5% for a minute that would mean ~2 cheaters on every 64player server...
    If that was really the case I would have quit the game for good long ago.

    Maybe we found one positive aspect of bfv's lack of popularity - it attracts less cheaters :wink:
    This just in...


    Every online fps game on PC has this "problem". If you don't believe me, go and check any other forum like official CSGO one.
    Such accusations only make you look ignorant, just like those youtube boys.
  • Ferdinand_J_Foch
    3306 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    VincentNZ said:
    And I really have to laugh every time when somebody states that most hacks are not obvious and people turn them on/off to not get caught. This makes no sense at all. If you are crap, and have to resort to cheats, why would you turn it off periodically and be crap again? Isn't it more likely that, in a game full of randomness, that where you can go 20-0 in one round and 8-20 in the next, that your average stats are catching up?
    I understood most of your points, but I have to disagree with this one to some extent. Yes, your stats wouldn't be as impressive as they could be if you toggle your cheats constantly. However, if you're too overt with your cheating, you're much more likely to be caught and banned. Many cheaters don't care about cheaters, but it's clear that some people want to avoid being banned whilst still maintaining some sort of unfair advantage. 

    Some Twitch streamers, YouTubers and professional players in various games have cheated, and I suspect that they don't want to get banned, since that would destroy whatever career they've built out of a game. Even if they're not professionals or content creators, they might not want to lose an account they've put effort in, such as a CSGO cheater with multiple $1000+ knives. Of course, cheating is already an idiotic thing to do, and it's even more idiotic if you're cheating on an account with a lot of time played, or even worse, a lot of expensive items in it's inventory.
  • MAJWolfcookies
    564 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    As others have said, count the servers at peak times Sunday has always been the most popular day to play since at least BF4. I have counted the servers multiple times now. The game population is tracking nearly identical to BFHL at the same time from its launch. within a couple of thousand players in total for all three platforms.

    That's pretty sad. There's the answer.
  • DrunkOnRedWine
    1449 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Does it matter that we can't see the player counts? You don't need to be Albert Einstein to figure out the population is low - Firestorm modes reduced, Domination and Frontlines removed to consolidate the existing game-modes and US and UK Datacentres disabled.

    The reasons for this are a whole different subject...
  • VincentNZ
    2685 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    VincentNZ said:
    And I really have to laugh every time when somebody states that most hacks are not obvious and people turn them on/off to not get caught. This makes no sense at all. If you are crap, and have to resort to cheats, why would you turn it off periodically and be crap again? Isn't it more likely that, in a game full of randomness, that where you can go 20-0 in one round and 8-20 in the next, that your average stats are catching up?
    I understood most of your points, but I have to disagree with this one to some extent. Yes, your stats wouldn't be as impressive as they could be if you toggle your cheats constantly. However, if you're too overt with your cheating, you're much more likely to be caught and banned. Many cheaters don't care about cheaters, but it's clear that some people want to avoid being banned whilst still maintaining some sort of unfair advantage. 

    Some Twitch streamers, YouTubers and professional players in various games have cheated, and I suspect that they don't want to get banned, since that would destroy whatever career they've built out of a game. Even if they're not professionals or content creators, they might not want to lose an account they've put effort in, such as a CSGO cheater with multiple $1000+ knives. Of course, cheating is already an idiotic thing to do, and it's even more idiotic if you're cheating on an account with a lot of time played, or even worse, a lot of expensive items in it's inventory.

    Let me rephrase that, as the original post might have been a bit too convoluted. Generally I would split this up in the following way: I have played a round last week where I had 0:8 or so against one guy. The round was particularly horrible and he killed me really fast all the time. However, I was playing a shotgun that round, and he used one of the STGs I believe. So he had a weapon that generally worked, and my one filled a special niche. I was really annoyed that round and suspected foul play.
    The most likely explanation is that we both played the same way, so we crossed arms a lot. Even on Devastation you can not entirely force shotgun engagement ranges, so I could have simply been outgunned most times, while also not functioning well in good ranges.
    He went 48-10 or something similar so pretty impressive, yet I have myself had similar rounds frequently. However I was, although the round was frustrating going 28-10 in the end myself, often because I pulled off some 4 kill flanks and got revived a lot. This could be the same for him, as he was also in the ace squad of the round. Without revives it might have been 48-20, too.
    Further, this could also be a statistical outlier for me, or for him, and I can only recall it because I never had someone go 0:8 against me.
    And herein lies the problem, I only have my limited POV when analyzing his performance. To be objective I would also need his end and the POV of the other 40 kills. And I would have to remove my emotional frustration from it.
    I have another example. Narvik, enemy was pushed to E and F. Same guy spawned at E three times in a row, and happened to move my way. I was using the G43 at that time, killing him three times with 100% accuracy, meaning nine shots. He called me a cheater and from his POV this is factually right as 100% accuracy is not a likely thing. His dataset is not big enough, though.  However BFV is a series of endless random events, where even the most unlikely occurences can appear. That is why I am saying a guy that is really good and then suddenly "turns off his hack" is most likely just a guy experiencing a personal statistical outlier.
  • Ferdinand_J_Foch
    3306 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited August 17
    VincentNZ said:

    Let me rephrase that, as the original post might have been a bit too convoluted. Generally I would split this up in the following way: I have played a round last week where I had 0:8 or so against one guy. The round was particularly horrible and he killed me really fast all the time. However, I was playing a shotgun that round, and he used one of the STGs I believe. So he had a weapon that generally worked, and my one filled a special niche. I was really annoyed that round and suspected foul play.
    The most likely explanation is that we both played the same way, so we crossed arms a lot. Even on Devastation you can not entirely force shotgun engagement ranges, so I could have simply been outgunned most times, while also not functioning well in good ranges.
    He went 48-10 or something similar so pretty impressive, yet I have myself had similar rounds frequently. However I was, although the round was frustrating going 28-10 in the end myself, often because I pulled off some 4 kill flanks and got revived a lot. This could be the same for him, as he was also in the ace squad of the round. Without revives it might have been 48-20, too.
    Further, this could also be a statistical outlier for me, or for him, and I can only recall it because I never had someone go 0:8 against me.
    And herein lies the problem, I only have my limited POV when analyzing his performance. To be objective I would also need his end and the POV of the other 40 kills. And I would have to remove my emotional frustration from it.
    I have another example. Narvik, enemy was pushed to E and F. Same guy spawned at E three times in a row, and happened to move my way. I was using the G43 at that time, killing him three times with 100% accuracy, meaning nine shots. He called me a cheater and from his POV this is factually right as 100% accuracy is not a likely thing. His dataset is not big enough, though.  However BFV is a series of endless random events, where even the most unlikely occurences can appear. That is why I am saying a guy that is really good and then suddenly "turns off his hack" is most likely just a guy experiencing a personal statistical outlier.
    It is indeed possible for someone to do really well in one round, and then do badly in the next, or vice versa. It is also possible to misjudge someone's performance if your only interactions with them is a series of matches, where you don't get to see the other player's perspective. These are all fair points.

    Still, I do maintain that there are people out there who don't use overt cheating in order to get avoid getting caught. You would have to understand why they are cheating, in order to see why different cheaters use different tactics. Some just want to ruin people's games. Some just want to see how long they can play for before getting banned. Some people want to do extremely well, without thinking ahead about whether they're going to get banned or not. Some want a noticeable advantage, but they don't want their account to get banned, due to either having an old account or not being able to get another account cheaply. This becomes even more complicated when dealing with games which issue hardware bans ... you'd have to put quite a lot of effort into undoing the effects of such a ban, and in most cases, you'll have to spend a fair bit of money to do so.

    People who don't want to get banned might resort to minor aim bots, or wall hacks that give them an edge without affecting their aiming performance. As far as I know, FairFight only sends images of a suspect's perspective if it detects something it finds to be suspicious ... so, if you don't get picked up by this anticheat due to statistical anomalies (such as impossible performances, or even highly inconsistent performances), you can probably do as you please, since there is no runtime anticheat software. There could be some other factors at play here, but DICE explicitly refuse to reveal details about their system in an effort to thwart cheat makers.

    Nonetheless, it's not the easiest thing in the world to be 'sure' about someone cheating or not, especially if you're on the opposing team. It's very easy to call the enemy player a cheater if they kill you ... many people have the mentality that everyone worse than them is a noob, and everyone better than them must be cheating. Sometimes, someone getting lucky can look like something suspicious, so you're right about that.

    I'll give an example from RS6. I was playing as Thatcher, attacking on Kafe. I was entering from the door close to the library, which housed the objective for the round. I thoroughly suck at this game, so I was surprised when I killed a defender with just one quick headshot, snapping onto the target with a fair amount of precision. After a few seconds, I got another defender the same way. Just ... TAP ... TAP ... TAP ... all of this with a suppressed AR33. I ended the round by getting the last defender in the same manner after I entered the building. It literally looked like something out of a professional tournament, and it could have been very easy to accuse me of cheating, especially after comparing my performance to my overall stats. I still don't know how I did it, but I do know that I died 30 seconds into the next round as Kapkan. In my case, it was sheer dumb luck.
    Post edited by Ferdinand_J_Foch on
  • BlindChance
    486 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited June 12
    The numbers are poor. I persoanlly haven't touched the game for 3 weeks now and I used to play BF games close to daily. I would play whatever was the newest title until the next one arrived. Since BF3/4, this has changed. I grown frustrated with BF games quality at launch, bored of poor quality maps not catering to all playstyles and tired of EA and DICE excuses. There is more to gaming than BF.

Sign In or Register to comment.