Re: EA doesn't seem to be keen on anti-cheat
@no_One31 Met this speciment today. Anything unusual that catches your eye?
Forum Discussion
85 Replies
96% hs/k catches my eye right away! Kind of high accuracy also.
@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 account44% accuracy is not that weird for a sniper rifle though.
I got 71% accuracy on the XCE Bar and 63% on the Gol Magnum.
@UP_Hawxxeye
The way spread works in this game is only one in 5 bullets goes on target so you would expect ~ 25% accuracy and not much higher you add this guy's 43% accuracy with the 96% HS and you got an impossible "Purchased" ability.
JMHO- @VOLBANKER_PC That is something that blows my mind.
Why is it so hard to code an algorithm that would put players under investigation if their stats begin to look sus.
40% or higher HS rate with a fully automatic AR - player's stats light up and sent for an investigation/manual review.
80% HS rate on over 1000 kills with an AR - Automatic EA account and IP ban.
Same could apply to KPM and accuracy.
@UP_LordPlumber wrote:@no_One31 Met this speciment today. Anything unusual that catches your eye?
Yes, I noticed they suck with SMGs! 🤣
- We are at a point where kernel level anti cheats do not work against the new ways of cheating. It's exactly the same situation now, as when BF3 came out.It was the golden age of cheats at the time, where Punkbuster and other ACs were basically completely ineffective against subscription cheats at the time.This was probably also the golden age for all 3rd party Anti cheat sites such as PB-Bans, ACI and other solutions that appeared, when PB alone was not enough.Therefore, AI algorithms must be added to kernel AC, as soon as possible, if you want to keep up with the cheating. I mean, when you have equally competent people, or better to deal with, then it's probably better to try to strike from a different angle, than to take the fight on their terms and always be one step behind.
- @SpoolaZ
You don't need 'kernel level' anticheat at all to detect those a****les.
All you need is gather stats until a certain number of kills per weapon is reached (say 200, to make outliers virtually impossible) and then you can use an extremely simple 'algorithm' (if you can call it that) even the worst of my students could hack in a few minutes would be able to detect those very obvious cheaters. You won't catch wallhackers, but those aimbotters are EASY to detect algorithmically.
The simple fact that this has not been implemented is proof enough to show that Dice does not WANT to ban those players.
I track a few of those players myself and check their stats every 2 days or so to check if their # of kills are increasing (read: if they are still actively playing) and I re-report them EVERY TIME I run across them on the battlefield before leaving the server. They are STILL playing MONTH after I first reported them (only 1 out of approx 10 I monitor stopped playing -- and maybe he just got bored and not even banned).
@VOLBANKER_PC wrote:
@UP_HawxxeyeHe’s got 82% HS with VHX-D3 ;-)
Case closed…!I had to look up and compare with what is normal for other players and I have to agree that this is quite damning
- @UP_Hawxxeye Almost impossible to play the game without 4 to 5 cheaters in game. Even little bird all headshots and 100 kills, EA seens to do nothing about it. Doenst matter if you report, nothing happens
- @M4TSUM0T0
I hope you have recorded that to include it with a report I don't see EA anti-cheat working these days and fell bad about the unstop cheat wave . They start to ruining every game now .
- @SpoolaZ If a game needs a Kernel level anti-cheat to ban people based on the evidence provided by extremely alarming player stats and not by them using actual cheating software, maybe that game shouldn't have a Kernel level anti-cheat since it's useless and is just invading people's privacy at that point.
The evidence is right there, 96% headshot percentage, no Kernel anti-cheat needed.
I wish more games took this stats first approach to banning and flagging accounts for inspection. Not only would it prevent false bans but it would quickly filter out the cheaters. Maybe AI should get involved to quickly check player stats after being reported. It is the hackers themselves who pushed this towards everything being run at the kernel level, since the commercial hacks, for a long time, operated at this level.
Their customers do not seem to be concerned about their security at all, and in their case it is quite possible that criminals could be behind the programs.
But when a large company does the same thing, then it is both system and integrity threatening.
I think the concern for many is that the Kernel level is just above the avarage knowledge, where most of the hobby coders are, and this level of AC has given them problems and headaches. But it won't be long before the knowledge threshold, even for this group, will be raised, and kernel level AC will be completely ineffective and everything will get worse again, much worse.
And then I haven't even counted on all these accessories that exist and are coming out, so to speak, to "help" when playing.
Because, no one still believes that everything will get better, look back if so, and see what history has to say.
Of course, kernel level will be needed, as it will at most take all beginners who have not reached the knowledge level to bypass today's AC.
But it also needs to add a stat-based algorithm (AI) to keep out players who can't behave, because these are just as disliked by closet hackers as by regular players.
Then these raised the threshold in the other direction, so that people instead started accusing each other of nothing.
And of course, what could be more insulting to a closet cheater, trying to blend in, than being accused of being a simple cheater.
- @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. - @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
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. - @TheseusJason
What do you mean 'without evidence'. The stats ARE the evidence. The same goes for a court of law. You don't have to have a video of a murderer killing someone. Evidence beyond reasonable doubt is enough (and in less civilized countries that still have the death penalty, this can even result in the person getting killed).
HS% of >40% for any AR is 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Those players ARE cheating and I don't think there would be any outcry for those individuals getting removed from the game.
What I don't understand is rather why there is ZERO outcry when those cheaters are NOT getting banned (like it obviously is the case with this game now). - @TheseusJason They don't have to provide any evidence. Just open the player's stat page, and see massive accuracy or HS rate with an automatic weapon - case closed.
If EA took cheating seriously, they could easily set up a system that would start recording you and forming a case for manual review. Then a person would open a file with your gameplay and see if you look sus. I wouldn't say they don't care. It's more that cheating in their games isn't seen as a priority. They market the game, sell the game, update the game, then end the game. All while banning and removing cheaters. Then once the game is done they move on from it like a fatherless child
- @D-Man3847
Not sure what you mean by '...all while banning and removing cheaters'. Did you want to write 'without ever banning cheaters'?
I reported many cheaters and all except one are still playing MONTHS after I reported them (and maybe the one just got bored and stopped playing and not even get banned).
I even report them again from time to time (every time I meet them in game). They are NOT getting banned. And they are 100% cheating, not just 'sus players'.
