Thats intentional.
Companies let detected hacks slide silently and then do waves of mass bans to prevent hackers working out what exactly triggered the ban.
That cat and mouse game has moved well beyond a simple "omg why can't ea ban this obv hack"
And TBH you're complaining about 380 people which is a drop in a bucket compare to the number of players on that game, yes cheating sucks but I can assure you there are people actively working on that problem at DICE.
Other EA games use other anticheat tools for example Apex Legends uses Easy Anti-Cheat[2], which is much more efficient to track and ban cheaters.
> And TBH you're complaining about 380 people which is a drop in a bucket compare to the number of players on that game
The Firestorm mode has so few players now (I estimate 3-10 games running in parallel in the world depending on the time) that it has a huge negative impact on the game. You only need 1 cheater in a game to ruin it for everyone else.
[1] https://www.ea.com/games/battlefield/battlefield-5/news/anti...
> Sure we defunded it, but look how crappy it is! Nobody uses it! Guess we don't need it.
I agree about the GOP though.
There are no circumstances where it makes sense to ignore player-submitted video proof of cheating. This should always be acted on quickly to reassure legitimate players and scare cheaters off.
Cheaters know there are different ways to get banned. When one gets caught rage-hacking (abusing cheats in a flagrant manner, without any effort to conceal their cheating) and they return to warn the hive, all it does is discourage other cheaters from rage-hacking. Very few cheaters will do something that they know will get them banned quickly
Yes.
Google it. All the major companies do hax bans in wave patterns. Valve, blizzard etc
>There are no circumstances where it makes sense to ignore player-submitted video proof of cheating.
Agreed. Not sure why you're bring it up though. I wasnt talking about user submitted anything???
The OP you responded to was talking about that. That's the context of the conversation. Of the cheaters not getting banned; of those bans not happening in waves.
>The shocking part is that we've compiled a list[1][2] of 380+ cheaters with video proofs and we've transmitted this list to some DICE community managers and employees
1. Person A talks about submitting videos of hackers and being ignored.
2. Person B says that "detected hacks" are acted on in waves as part of arms race with hackers, says nothing of "user-submitted", instead generalizes about "detected hacks".
3. Person C gets uppity about companies ignoring hacks, irrespective of the potentially-valid reason as mentioned by person B.
4. Person B insists that the bans happens in waves. Says he wasn't talking about "user-submitted" stuff as he was talking in generalities.
5. Person D jumps in says "thread is absolutely about user-submitted stuff".
I paraphrased and generalized too for a bit of dramatic effect, but the thread is definitely broken and if someone stares at it for a bit, they would probably see how it went bad and that probably no one is technically wrong.
6. Person E jumps in with meta-commentary about the discussion that led to this point.
Edit: Formatting.
Then, respectfully... what did you think you were responding to? That's pretty much entirely what the OP & thread are about :-)
The part I was quoting. OP wrote multiple paragraphs.
I mean we can argue about whether "the state of anticheat on this game is absolutely horrific" refers to automated or reports but given article I was pretty certain the section I quote was automated. Anticheat is generally not understood to mean manual reports as best as I can tell. Its the well anticheat software
Besides the Linux bans are probably not user reports Driven..
That's the thing though. Good games (CS comes to mind) do have some sort of ability to have human intervention.
Building a hack that can't be detected isn't easy, but it's also not _that_ hard with determination.
So they used in game mechanics that abused how the bots are known to operate; where certain dialog boxes pop and how they move and react to threats; to force the bot to join a group, accept being teleported, and then they sacrificed another of the groups score to drag down the bots score.
the current comment thread includes the cynic but likely true claim that blizzard would ban these players for harassment before banning the bot for cheating/breaking eula
[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/classicwow/comments/ej3l10/because_...
And if the net result of that strategy is that it catches many fewer cheaters? That wouldn't make much sense, and the community, far from being reassured, would be more frustrated because they would encounter many more instances of cheating that occurred because players were able to deduce the loop holes.
You have to balance "catch the most cheaters" vs. "catch cheating immediately". Especially when it may take many instances of suspicious behavior to make a confident decision to ban.
The problem with this strategy is that it virtually guarantees that cheaters will get to have multiple months of fun before they get banned.
Discouraging someone from doing a destructive behavior requires preventing it when it happens. You need consistent, immediate enforcement. If you get banned the same day you start cheating, then that's a discouragement. If you're guaranteed a few months of fun on an alt account, then that's an encouragement.
There’s also not much functional difference between banning as soon as a cheat is detected in the population and banning a few weeks later. Some players will have just started using it and others will have been using it for months unless it was found as soon as it was released.
The discouragement comes from losing progress, losing money (potentially having to rebuy an account and find and buy a new cheat) and distrust in the cheat author.
The downside to banning already detected cheats immediately is that cheat authors have a nice simple, repeatable test to see if their cheat is still detectable which makes development much more straightforward for them.
I could see waiting to ban a wave of people if you also release an update that addresses the exploit being used. But I don't know that I have ever seen that be the case. The hacks that existed before the ban wave are often equally effective if not the same exact cheats as the ones being used after the ban wave. The author updates a bit of detection bypass code, and they are done.
So if it's intentional, it's not a very effective methodology in my experience.
It isn’t. An anticheat that bans months late is as good as no anticheat at all.
You don't know.