Policy should be there to protect honest players / consumers, ensuring a legitimate playing experience. By not providing at least an acknowledgement, you are discouraging reporting and damaging an already unstable confidence in the title and staff who supposedly police it. One guy said this is how AAA companies deal with this sort of thing. This is incorrect, Blizzard (Overwatch) has extensive policy and procedure for processing and deliberating on reported cheaters from amateur to professional. Any submissions you make are responded to with a basic acknowledgement and a thank you. If caught the cheater is banned from the game for a period (you don’t get the actual verdict).
Ppl still play Overwatch? Only reason it’s supported that way is esports and all the parents getting upset their kids are sad. AAA companies realize it cost more to combat cheating than their investors are willing to cover. Look at all the new games this last year that have cheating problems, even just a few months after release. And most of these games will have new versions a year later. This is how it is, and the reason so many ppl will switch over to console.
thanks for guys’comments. I love battfield series. I wanted buy BF5 before. But my friends say that there are many cheaters in BF5 which is more than BF1. So I give up buying it. As far as I am concerned, since consumers pay money for these companies , game companies should take players experience into consideration then.The anti-cheater-system “battlefield EYES” of Rainbow 6 runs great,i think. Because I have never met cheaters in R6.
It pales in comparison to BF1. The vehicular gameplay (especially tank gameplay) is a step in the negative direction with the overall experience feeling limited even though there are physically more planes and tanks in BFV than BF1. On foot, you constantly have to deal with insta-deaths because the TTD vs TTK is messed up for some odd reason (be it server issues or high pingers).
By far the worst issue, at least for me, is enemy visibility. Whatever lighting changes they made to the Frostbite engine between BF1 and BFV has effectively made it so that enemy soldiers blend into the background like static objects. If your enemy isn’t directly moving, it becomes unnecessarily difficult to spot them but they can still see you and pick you off in like 0.5 seconds. BF1’s visuals look crisp and distinct to the point where you can make out individual players from hundreds of meters away in a Destroyer whereas BFV’s visuals look like melted blobs where you can’t really make out where something begins and where it ends. It’s so bad that some PC users created a graphics mod (it’s banned now) that made the game look like Roblox just to see enemies better.
Overall, I wouldn’t say it’s a bad, bad game like Fallout 76 but it is definitely lacking in substance/content due to the “Live Service” model they’ve adopted.
It’s a generic game, excelling at nothing in particular. The WW2 FPS genre is already pretty over saturated/overdone and BFV introduces nothing groundbreaking into the genre imo.