EA doesn't seem to be keen on anti-cheat
The new season has not kept cheaters out; they are present in every game and are increasing in number as time goes by. From last season till now, not only familiar faces are still active in the game...
Forum Discussion
@UP_Hawxxeye My accuracy with sniper rifles is around 25-28%, and my HS% around 75% to 85%. But I mainly use 4x scopes, so its more like the options between miss or headshot on long distances.
The HS% of all the fast firing weapons all look suspicious to me.
The HS% of all the fast firing weapons all look suspicious to me.
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.
@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…”
- @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.- @UP_LordPlumber I had no idea I’m playing a game under license only. Thanks for this info.
Still nonetheless, imagine how it would play out in the public arena: legally they can then remove you from the player base, but the backlash would no doubt decapitate the market valuation of the company when banning without concrete evidence of malfeasance. (As opposed to “we banned him as we can produce evidence of aimbotting, wallhacking, etc”.) Why I’m not surprised at hackers running riot in the gaming scene: the difficulty in collecting evidence.
