I have been playing BF- games since day 1. I have played every single one for thousands of hours total. Untill BF5 , it was unbearable to play with the cheaters. There is no point playing. So Now after not playing BF for a year I am very reluctant to buy new game if it is also unplayeble because of impotent report system. How can I trust it to be better than in BF5
@BensatankkiCheaters are banned. We do not have the data on how many or how often, but EA DICE does ban cheaters.
As for whether or not you can trust it to be better than BF5, that is entirely up to you.
I can say that there have been no official announcements or press releases about the anti-cheat measures in Battlefield 2042. While that is disappointing to some extent, I would also ask what would you want to hear EA DICE say in this regard?
Firestorm was great, until it was full of guys driving the halftrack spraying the map alone with autoaim. In Battlegrounds you can get feedback after your report gets guy banned, in BF firestorm you just waste lot of time starting a map and then dying after 20 min on a totally clear cheater.
The report system is horrible, when you see a guy obviously cheating we want him banned right now. not 3 months from now, after he has already gone another hundred hours of just hacking away.
This is why rented servers with good mods is far better than some flimsy report system.
If we have to depend on EA to keep the cheaters in check then this game is doomed before its even released.
This is how I feel every time I use EA's reporting system.
The report system needs a complete overhaul and EA needs to communicate with their customers regarding if actions are being taken or not.
This way customers can measure how effective the reporting system is and have confidence that actions are being taken.
I've personally lost all confidence in EA and will be switching to PlayStation 5.
THEY NEED TO ATTACK BATTLELOG.COM.... but they wont. alot of content creator use ESP. Wall hacks. they sell cheats you can launch through BIOS. they are completely undetected cheats... unfortunately they will never spend the money or time to counter these systems. it just doesnt make sence with how tight they are in their budget plans. its avideo game yes... but more than that it is a company and the owners of these titles do not care. they take the money and run and set tight demands/timelines on there devs. the devs can only do so much. they dont like cheaters either.
@OskooI_007Great picture btw. That said, based on current developments, it's not going to be much better console-side for long.
Bot-makers go for the customer base, and they've already figured that PC-side has become a mess, so next stop console-land, and not talking about modded controllers here.
Seeing as quite a few people are apparently willing to pay $1500 a month to cheat in a video game (probably got nothing to do with there being lots of money in sitting at home playing a video game with a webcam or screencap running) i doubt the cost of a cheap PC to run between the console and monitor/TV/capture device is really not going to stop much of anything.
The good news is that eventually when even the "sanctity" of console land gets absolutely borked like PC has become the last 10 years (not like we didn't have cheats long, long before that either, but recently it's gotten comical) the industry at large might actually put some resources into coming up with better fixes than just a really slowly developing anti-cheat ecosystem.
Or, they can watch sales plummet on their most profitable titles, pretty sure i know what matters most to the publishers and their current stance isn't viable in the long run.
@iiBullFrogCurious, what would attacking battlelog fix?
Just asking because battlelog and things like BFstats was actually one of the more helpful tools for weeding out the more clever walls/aimbot users back in 3/4, and though it's not foolproof (i vaguely remember something about one of the admins for either BFstats or one of the similar sites back in 4 actually editing his own stats to hide being a dirtbag) it *did* help a lot of the community server admins do a quick check on a suspicious player and at least make an easy call on banning them if they ran around with a 90% headshot count or something equally comical.
I'd argue more granular data would just be helpful, one example being a tracker to see if someone has a tendency to suddenly go full bucket if they're on the losing end of a match (aka, switching things on and off as "needed").
Well this guy got banned, wonder what his take is:
Solved: Re: Do Battlefield bans transfer to other titles? - Page 2 - Answer HQ (ea.com)
A player reporting system should be available and easy to use, not like it used to be.
