The Beta was full of cheaters and they are laughing because the same code for Battlefront works on BF1… They are already claiming its so easy its comical…
Dice/EA get off your a##es, I swear you want your games to fail after a few months so you can work on selling the next game!
Sometimes a beta like this is the perfect opportunity for collecting information and data from different cheats that are used. Let’s just hope EA/DICE takes advantage of this. I agree with you though, battleye is doing wonders for R6!
Fairfight is a joke haha… It does not scan for hacks at all, it bans of stats only…
Battleye, dont cheat dont get banned. Its that simple. If you are scared of it than you are a cheater.
Again BF1 uses the same engine as Battlefront, I have read hackers forums and they are laughing because the same cheats work with a small adjustment. It’s fun reading about ppl getting banned and how easy some games are to hack.
I watch them struggle with battleye and they wont even support games with battleye now. To me that is saying something, they cant hack it and its not worth thier time. Soooo It should be in BF1 if you ask me..
Fairfight bans using stats that are impossible even with the greatest of skilled players
Battleye is becoming useless due to the fact that hacking software is developing more and more counters to it
Stats however cannot be hidden from the Developers.
This is why Fairfight shines in the longterm
Fairfight Does not ban instantly.
It bans using stats Over a period of time.
This makes the chance of accidental bans Much lower
Since Battleye bans almost instantly or in a few days, the chance of counters to it and or accidental bans is higher than Fairfight
This is why Battleye is losing support.
Anti-Battleye software makes Battleye utterly useless in the longrun
And hackers do make anti this and anti that for security programs
Hackers always develop ways to counter Security programs.
Fairfight however is much harder to counter due to its usage of stats.
Also You can’t sue pay to cheat websites.
Hackers are anonymous. Making them practically invisible
You can’t ban someone that does not exist on the Internet.
Fairfight is quite easy to counter to be honest. As it takes statistics over time, all they do is pad said statistics before and/or after they play.
Example: Bullet spread.
They play with no bullet spread for a few rounds doing very well. Afterwards they set up a macro to just spam fire their weapon for an entire round while sitting on an ammo crate. This brings their stats back into line with normal.
Fairfight is not the end all anti-cheat, nor is Battleye; however, to dismiss a program like Battleye because “hackers are trying to create anti-battleye programs” is a weak argument at best. Of course hackers are attempting to counter it. This has been a horrible cat and mouse games between the hackers and game designers for years, and the hackers always have the advantage. It has always been easier to break something (especially for a few) than it is to fix it (especially when the need to deploy to the masses).
Yes there will be false bans with Battleye. But using the “I would rather see 1000 guilty people go free than 1 innocent hanged” argument does not fly here. No one is losing their life, and an extremely small percentage of false positives that need to be manually addressed is no reason to not move forward.
There have been several polls across different games asking what platform they play and why. The main reason many choose to NOT to play on PC is because of the cheaters (real or perceived). Game designers are loosing more money on this negativity than from any negativity from a very small portion of false bans.
I do not think that is a true statement in full. I believe they do care as it cost’s them money. The perception (real or not) that the games are infested with cheaters is actually a huge monetary issue for these companies. As much as you, personally, may be willing to put additional software on your computer to catch cheaters; it is clear not everyone shares this view. Furthermore, when pushing the boundaries of graphics vs. performance of the computers owned by your target market, you need to consider the performance implications of this software as well.
I am in the camp of hardware bans, windows ID bans, etc… But there are people resistant to this as well. Given the family oriented nature of gaming in today’s environment; it would not be ideal to ban a PC or Credit Card etc… of every game in the library because your 12 y/o did what a 12 y/o does, act stupid on the internet. From a business standpoint, all of these factors need to be considered. As much as people love to hate corporations (the greed is real), the reason these AAA titles exist is because of backers. If you think independent studios have it any better, look at Star Citizen and all the issues they are going through. Money does not grow on trees, and people do not work for free.
BE sends some of the contents of your HDD to it’s server and what is worse is that they got their server hacked in 2012. I really don’t want my personal files leaked one day just because I played battlefield. Also it’s not true that there aren’t BE proof hacks out there, I found a website that sells a BE hack with many positive ratings just from googling.
No one stated that. I merely pointed out that there is more to it than “EA is only in it for the money” or “EA does not care.” Business issues such as this are not binary is all I was attempting to point out.
I am for aggressive anti-cheats; but I have no financial interest in EA as a company.
Trust me, EA is only about money 100% a crap anticheat like punkbuster is a cheap way out it saying “look we care and no one can cheat” EA does not care at all about its customers, they care about money. If a games replay value is too long they will lose sales on side games like Hardline and BFront…
The stock holders? Nope they could care less on an individual basis.
The board members? Nope they could care less on an individual basis.
The corporate accountants? Nope they could care less on an individual basis.
I would fully expect that of those groups. These groups judge customer satisfaction on financial metrics alone. If people stop purchasing the product, their attention is peaked. However…
The Program Managers, the Product Managers, the Developers, the Engineers, the QA team, etc… all care. Business is not black and white. There are many levels of people from the creators to the investors that are accounted for. Blanket statements such as “they only care about the money” is both true and no where near the full story.
Dude…It’s really quite simple and you are overly complicating the implementation of a legit anticheat. EA the publisher controls the Dev’s.. They tell them what they want and what they dont. They look at the business side and could care less about the gameplay. That is why BF1 is a complete replica of Battlefront with new skins. They do not want to pay Dice more than they have to…
Right now they are surviving off 1942 and BF2’s reputation. It is wearing off tho as people have been exposing them since Titanfall and Hardline… Battlefront was a half effort B title with no campaign sold to the sheep. They got half a game for a AAA title price.
EA controls every aspect of DICE.
It’s not that complicated, add a real anticheat and quit making excuses.
Apparently I have no clue about corporate business, I am very happy to have had you educate me on this subject. You are clearly a gentleman and a scholar…
With that, all of my posts stand as a whole. My stance is clear if you, or anyone else, chooses to read them in their entirety.
Yeah, after some script kiddie has ruined hundreds of games involving thousands of players… then EA promptly slaps them on the wrist and say ‘Tsk, tsk, we’ll reset your stats for that !’
It’s a joke. Which is why hack forums are full of people laughing about it. It offers no deterrent whatsoever, because they only get caught after they’ve had their fun. If it even catches them anyway… which is unlikely for all but the most blatant ones, because they ‘tune’ their assists to stay within humanly achievable parameters. So they don’t show up.
It doesn’t work, never has worked, and never will work as a deterrent.
Your lack of reading comprehension is disturbing. Generally ‘hackers’ don’t go on ‘sprees’ because that will quickly flag them up. So they use more subtle settings for their autoaim that Fairfight can’t really detect. They’re still cheating, just doing it surreptitiously. Like the sneaky, underhanded, slimeballs that they are. Unsurprisingly.
