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.
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.
You’re right that experiences vary a lot between regions and platforms, and we also don’t know EA’s full internal process. I’m not claiming to have hidden data — I’m doing a simple reality check that anyone can follow without math symbols.
If the real cheat infection rate was truly around 2%, then in something like 50 matches you’d normally expect about one cheated match. Seeing 4 or 5 in that span would already be unusual, and seeing 10 or more would be extremely unlikely.
But many players consistently report something like:
10 to 20 suspicious or clearly abnormal matches
within 50 to 100 games
Now, for EA’s 2% number to still be correct, almost all of those suspicious matches would have to be false alarms. Not “some”.
We’re talking 80–90% or more.
And that’s the key point:
Even if we assume players are wrong most of the time, even if we say only one out of ten suspicious matches is actually a cheater, the real rate would still end up above EA’s 2%.
The only situation where EA’s number holds is if nearly everything players perceive as cheating is actually a mistake — and that just doesn’t match what people consistently observe, especially in high-risk modes and regions.
So I’m not saying EA is lying.
I’m saying the published 2% MIR almost certainly describes only the cheats the system already detects, not the total number of cheated matches players run into.
That’s why I’d really like EA to clarify how the metric is defined. With proper context, the number might make perfect sense — right now it simply doesn’t line up with the reality many players see.
