Forum Discussion
@sk1lld
I do not know, even as someone mediocre at sniping I got like 78% headshot ratio on the Gol Magnum. Enders has like 81% HS ratio on his best gun so I guess one can do get suspicious of a 96% when a competitive player is at like 15% less. though he may be a smurf account
44% accuracy is not that weird for a sniper rifle though.
I got 71% accuracy on the XCE Bar and 63% on the Gol Magnum.
The HS% of all the fast firing weapons all look suspicious to me.
- UP_LordPlumber2 years agoSeasoned Ace@kregora But your KPM is only 0.4, meaning if you theoretically were hacking, you would get 7-9 kills in a 20-minute match, so that wouldn't make much difference anyway compared to some bio trash who goes on a rage and kill 70-80 people across the map
- 2 years ago
If you want some simple heuristics: all players with at least 200 kills and at the same time >40 HS% for any AR or SMG are cheaters. Plain and simple. Same goes for normal accuracy of >30% for AR/SMG, which is not possible. You can't ban players with just 50 kills for the weapon being evaluated as there might be some outliers. But for weapons with 200+ kills, this heuristics is quite robust. Ban all those players. Simple. Why is it not being done, as calling this way simple would still make it sound more complicated than it actually is?
The ONLY reason why those players are not getting banned is BECAUSE EA/DICE DO NOT WANT TO. If there is ANY other explanation that would make sense I would LOVE to hear it.- Alethes2 years agoSeasoned Ace
@ForumUser wrote:If you want some simple heuristics: all players with at least 200 kills and at the same time >40 HS% for any AR or SMG are cheaters. Plain and simple. Same goes for normal accuracy of >30% for AR/SMG, which is not possible. You can't ban players with just 50 kills for the weapon being evaluated as there might be some outliers. But for weapons with 200+ kills, this heuristics is quite robust. Ban all those players. Simple. Why is it not being done, as calling this way simple would still make it sound more complicated than it actually is?
The ONLY reason why those players are not getting banned is BECAUSE EA/DICE DO NOT WANT TO. If there is ANY other explanation that would make sense I would LOVE to hear it.I do see your logic and agree with it. The problem being, we live in an era where landing accusations is an explosive cocktail. I’m refraining from using the word ‘snowflake mentality’ here, but a sensitive player could argue in courts (if not at least the court of public opinion via social media) that he was banned with no evidence. Any lawyer would fall in heavy at the publishing company involved. Hey, teachers get suspended or even fired for saying the ‘wrong’ words in classes… imagine EA/DICE trying to reason and explain to activist-types “we banned the player because statistics show their gameplay is not realistically possible…”
- UP_LordPlumber2 years agoSeasoned Ace@TheseusJason If you want a legal bit here, then have some:
You don't "own" any game that you purchase. Publisher/Developer grants you a limited license to use the product such as software that happens to be a video game, but they keep the right to withdraw your license ownership at any point. It's in the user agreement. Its how they can shut down the game like Bad Company 2. If you legally owned a game, they would have to refund you the cost. But since you don't own it, they can take it away at any point.
About Battlefield 2042 General Discussion
Recent Discussions
- 2 hours ago
- 3 hours ago
- 6 hours ago