A EULA applies to an end-user. So if you’re using a 3rd party program which is disallowed then you could be banned. That would cover any software that enabled players to make something that constituted cheating.
How that would be interpreted and how difficult it might be to ban software from a major producer I’m not sure. It might be that an anti-cheat would be instructed to disallow a program because it was easy to use the program to make a cheat. But making bans stick might be difficult. I can see how that could result in a ban wave and then the bans being overturned when the manufacturer of the program disputes how it’s software is used.
It’s better to catch players in-game and ban them with evidence of what they did in-game. If you are banning for 3rd party software then people will say they weren’t using it to cheat.
I don’t think it is that simple because someone might have a genuinely could reason for using a pretty simple macro to help them overcome a disability whereas another person might just be cheating. You wouldn’t be able to know the difference without going down some awkward roads. Again is better to use in-game monitoring from the game producers point of view to get actual evidence of cheating.
I was an admin for a long time in BF2. I was always polite and courteous and did my best to be fair. But over time a became more cynical after constant abuse and all the rest of it. I can remember there being a UAV hack that could completely ruin the servers. People would quit and the servers would begin to die. I though I had found a way to tell who was doing the hack but I was wrong. If you wrongly kick or ban any players then you have failed.
I’m very dubious about admins banning people for cheating. I’ve only come across one admin in my entire playing time who I thought was really good at it.
Even if FairFight doesn’t ban the player who said was shooting people inside a tank with a pistol it may be that it bans all the others and then eventually catches up with that one. I can remember in BF2 being shot in a tank by a rifle but it was a very rare cheat. If FairFight caught 99% of cheats but missed those rare ones then I think I would take that.
An anti-cheat that doesn’t catch an obvious aimbotter after 1,5 years of being reported the first time (I reported this cheater 4x in total) is a joke. That is not a bad argument, that is the truth. Your weird analogy doesn’t hold water against cold hard facts and logic.
The cheater I mentioned is not the only case, I have more cases. It’s just the one case that takes the cake as it ridiculous beyond belief that an obvious aimbotter can cheat his way through FF for 1,5 years without getting caught. Or maybe he did get caught, but was able to restore his account.
Your info is wrong. I read posts from May 2018 on a cheat forum that cheaters have successfully transferred games from a banned account to a new account under their own name multiple times. They did say that it doesn’t always work, but there are some support guys who don’t ask too many questions and simply give them what they want, plus sometimes even extra free games and/or discount codes…
EA can claim that it isn’t possible all they want, but I see no logical reason why cheaters would make up this stuff and advise each other on their cheat forum on how to get unbanned or circumvent bans. Then you have multiple cheaters who say they had success in following that advice.
It could also be the case that EA doesn’t instruct or check their employees activities properly, that too wouldn’t surprise me at all.
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…
I never said it was the only case. It’s merely an hyperbolic example how you can have tons of example where the anticheat is working over a select examples where you say it isn’t working, therefore it’s useless.
I’d argue more favor it being effective than ineffective.
You make it sound like there’s an epidemic because you encounter a handful of cheaters.
I agree the anti-cheat isn’t perfect but no anti cheat is!
oh, okay, well I was apparently quite ignorant, Thought Fairfight was something more exclusive to EA since I’ve barely seen it.
Regardless If it’s also used on R6:S, I think it’s clearly got a massive shortcoming compared to other anti-cheat systems, at least as far as PC gaming is concerned.
It basically forces servers to be proprietary or tightly-regulated by the developers. That to me seems like quite the opportunity cost. (For EA I mean; Just think they actually had to pay people to code and test a Battle-Royal-style mode for their next game… and they’re going to have to actually pay wages for artists to come up with new cosmetics rather than just outsourcing that work to freelance submissions, Though I think the Battlefield PC community kind of suffered from it as well)…
Anyway I was meaning that a system “like VAC”, or “VAC-ish”, not VAC itself since it’s obviously owned by Valve, VAC seems like a “good enough” thing to me in most circumstances, combined with other things of course (like Admins, some client-side anti-cheat to stop the most obvious/obnoxious hackers; perhaps some level of stat-tracking on “official” or “Vanilla” servers, so more minor cheaters can be eventually caught if they do it long enough).
it would be nice to see a return of modding/mod support to this game series.
I think there is a solution to cheating and it could be improved, but I’m not an anticheat dev. I think BF sits in a good place when it comes to anticheat. So many other games are having bigger problems than bf is. It’s never going to be perfect dude.
Yes, I brought up that example before. I think these people are expecting something perfect like some type of DRM that keeps people from cheating. It’s not easy like that.
well as I mentioned in an earlier post I firmly believe in communication Dice towards the community and that they would open the door towards 3. party AC and at some point tell us whats in the box for us. I dont need access to the gamefiles on a server but want to run my plugins like I do on Bf3 and 4 servers. They would stop a lot of speculations by very simple means like “Yes, we got a new AC coming up, its an addon to FF - we call it Xxxx we also decided to release a procon substitute called Proncorn that works with plugins ad in bf4” Voila ! that would be killing a lot of speculations and grief.
Sorry, couldn’t help myself. But ya.. I totally don’t understand this complete black-out of information on what Dice is doing about AC. If you can’t inform your customers about what you’re doing to address an issue because that will somehow (magically) give information that would help the cheat providers, then the solution is bad.
I’m not sure “Proncorn” is really.. all that appropriate a name.. lol
As I see it EA/DICE can do better than that, it’s setting the bar a bit too low in my opinion; I mean Bethesda brought modding to consoles recently, EA has yet to even show even a hint of interest in following them or valve when it comes to creating similar systems (for either consoles or PC).
The only logical solution is to simply wait and see what Dice and EA provides for AC. Don’t pre-order. If it’s just FF then you need to ask yourself if that is enough, I say it isn’t for a triple A title
Maybe they could do what Ubisoft is doing for R6 Siege and demand 2-factor-authentication for every account to stop hackers getting their hands on cheap or hacked accounts.
Why would I recommend anything? I’m not the one programming the anti-cheat. And Yes, I think its effective, because if you have played the previous battlefields, compared to BF4 and BF3, I think BF1 has had least insistence of cheating compared the two.
If they choose to add on an extra layer of protection, I’m for it as well. But do they* need* to? no. I think FF is doing a good job.
I dont think it’s that easy. Take for example VAC, it’s been cited by many publications as one of the top 3 best ACs out there…yet CSGO is still loaded with people cheating all the time. It goes back to my statement it’s not just about preventing but how fast you can react to new cheats.
I think it’s very important to keep what they are doing about AC under wraps until launch…last thing you want is the manufacturer’s of cheats trying to start developing software before it comes out. By keeping it quiet you at least delay the initial development since you dont know what or how DICE is going to police BFV.
that’s because hackers have a major incentive to make cheats for CSGO so they will be cheats made for it. Supply and Demand sort of thing. To be honest, I never heard of Vac being lauded as a good anti-cheat. More or less regarded as the default anticheat.
I think a few people here are just incredulous. They think people are hacking where they’re not. It’s not hard to identify a hacker most of the time, but most of the playerbase blend hacker and good player together.
Yes, its true some people slip the system and don’t get caught. But it doesn’t make FF bad. Just makes it not perfect. Those cheats are proabably being updated as much as fairfight is. PC gamer did a whole article on it and valve did a workshop on anticheat. Apparently for some cheats, they require a passport. Sounds like shady stuff just to access less used cheats.
No one can argue that Bf1 was less than ideal in the anti-cheat department when first launched, now it’s just about average.
I think that DICE/EA should be saying something about their plans for BFV anti-cheat protection, they don’t have to go into detail, just that we will be using some sort of in-house developed A/C, or whatever.However if they said it was going to be a modded version of BattleEye for instance then that would be foolish.
Since I started playing with BF2 and through 2142, BC2, BF3, BF4 I always played on Clan servers, never on DICE official, there was never a problem with cheats that caused too much trouble. Obviously those versions were a lot different to what we have now with servers and A/C etc.
I know I have encountered more cheats on BF1 than all those others put together, that’s just the obvious/trolling cheaters.
In BF1 almost every game session I have some wtf moments, players just appear in front of you, getting shot behind cover, insta-killed by slow firing weapons and so on.
If DICE need to improve at all it is in the server/netcode (general term) area, stop out of region players etc. as this causes lots of wtf moments. Purely off the top of my head I would say that the sweet spot for a good game experience is in the region of 55 - 75 but I will never be able to have that if EA stick to their current server locations.