Questions About the Recently Published Anti-Cheat Statistics (MIR = 2%)

The charm of statistics. If I were to average things out with Elon Musk, I would still be a billionaire.😆

Experiences vary and cheaters don't really spread out evenly across all regions. Some people may genuinely experience a much higher concentration of cheaters than others. In my personal experience, I never encounter noticeable cheaters, yet I understand that my experiences aren't necessarily representative of the entire player base. 

I can't really comment on what you claim that you've researched, because you're only sharing conclusions rather than also showing how you reached those conclusions. 

Is there some merit to what you're saying? I'd say that's likely, but at the same time we don't exactly know the exact process EA used to come to their conclusions. You said as much yourself. As long as EA doesn't clarify these matters we won't be able to verify the arguments on both sides. 

Amen.   There is a huge cheating discord network going undetected. ratios are the key to catching them

It's simple, tell you what you want to hear and prove nothing

-blatant tracking through walls
-perfect recoil nullification
-robotic micro-adjust aim patterns
-snapped target switching
-impossible flick precision
-unnatural spatial awareness
-repeated full-team wipes with identical aim signatures

Ah yes, all the things that you have no tools or kill cam to detect lol

-seeing cheating in 4 or more matches out of 50 would already be statistically unlikely
-many players easily see 10, 15, or even 20 such games in that range
-such frequencies would be close to impossible under a true 2% rate

Even if a game were to have 0 cheats, players would still have the perception of other players cheating

I read that article and if I remember correctly, it was about the freshly released BF6. So, the numbers would be a little different now. But remember almost all statistics are made up.

sl_rebase (and others), I think it is important to remember that there are multiple games in this game. And within those games, there are different environments. Your experience will not match others', if your use does not match others'.

Within the traditional core game, the cheating problem is likely low. The stated cheating metrics are almost certainly based on the core game with its lower incidence of cheating. Within the free-to-play part, the cheating is undeniably higher. You can witness it, you can see the discussion of it, you can confirm others' experience with it, and it just makes sense financially that a free game has low cheating inhibition.

Saying that there is no way to spectate or quantify the stated observations, really indicates that you don't play the game where the biggest cheating problems are. The free-to-play game does have the ability to spectate, and almost all stated observations can be quantified.

Additionally, within the game are different environments.  Within the PC environment, the majority of the cheating will be software ESP/wallhack and aimbot.  Within the console environment, the cheating will be 0% software, ESP is impossible, and instead it will be hardware augments such as recoil reduction and aim assist manipulation to make the aim assist more sticky. We can argue about which one is more powerful and damaging; I would say PC, and that's why I play mouse and keyboard on console with crossplay off. Aimbot on console will be 0% or near 0%, depending on if anyone has yet trained an aimbot model for the discountinued Titan product, using its no longer supported software, and decided it is worth the time and effort with its more complicated and expensive hardware requirements. Where you play and what crossplay options you have/use will affect your perception of what cheating is and whether you feel like there are or are not a lot of cheaters.

Since the cheating is undeniably higher in the free-to-play game, there is no reason it can't exist in the core game; it's the same code. The only inhibition is cost and how much of a risk someone wants to take dirtying the reputation of their BF identity.  Cheating percentage in the core game will likely continue to rise as people see it not being prevented, as people start losing interest in the game, and as people perceive the continual compromise of the franchise.

You’re absolutely right — statistics can be misleading when averages are used incorrectly.
That’s actually why MIR stands out: it’s not an average, it’s a binary event rate (“was a cheater present: yes or no”).

With binary events, simple probability checks are much more reliable.
Even using very conservative assumptions, the published 2% MIR becomes hard to reconcile with how often players actually report suspicious behavior.

So your point is valid, but that makes the MIR figure even more surprising, not less.

Your points are completely valid. Cheater density absolutely varies by region, and of course none of us know EA’s full internal methodology.

The reason I raised the question is exactly because of that:
without knowing how MIR is defined, it’s hard to understand how a global number like 2% is meant to reflect reality.

And regarding methodology — the reasoning is pretty straightforward:
even under generous assumptions, a 2% infection rate would make it statistically unlikely for players to encounter cheating as frequently as many report.

That doesn’t prove EA is wrong — it just shows that the metric might describe detected cheating rather than actual cheating.
Which is why clarification would help everyone.

I agree that undetected networks and private cheat communities are a major part of the problem.
And that’s exactly why a detection-based KPI like MIR can only tell part of the story.

If the system can’t see those methods, they won’t appear in the KPI —
even though they still affect players.

That’s why more detailed or contextual metrics would be helpful for both the players and the dev team.