Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Battlefield 3 Bans Follow-up

The Battlelog forums have a follow-up on recent indications that Battlefield 3 players were being unfairly banned from playing by PunkBuster. Word is: "Together with the 3rd party service providers we have taken steps to remove the faulty bans, and improve the protection against future fake bans. We have determined that the root cause resulting in the server bans is not directly related to Battlefield 3, but rather related to select 3rd party services which server owners can use in conjunction with PunkBuster to protect their servers" (thanks BF3 Blog). Further, Eurogamer notes that DICE is now looking to hire an "Anti-Cheat Administrator" to further their efforts at maintaining a fair playing field.

View
64 Replies. 4 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 ] Older >

64. Re: Battlefield 3 Bans Follow-up Feb 12, 2012, 16:10 ^Drag0n^
 
I LOL'd. Again.

^D^
 
Avatar 55075
 
"Never start a fight, but always finish it."
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
63. Re: Battlefield 3 Bans Follow-up Feb 12, 2012, 13:24 Sepharo
 
Paranoid Jack wrote on Feb 12, 2012, 10:08:
Look BF3 Hacks Galore > Nope No Hacks or Cheaters Here

Not sure why I am wasting my time but here goes... one last time. We are not on dial up anymore and latency can't help you explain away all the hacks that are out there. So glad you supposedly never see them. You can wear blinders all you like it matters not to me. Oh, and your breakdown made me LMAO, thanks.

"I just got done playing a few hours of CS, some guys were incredibly hard to hit while others were easy. It's not because they were hackers, they were terrible. It's because they don't set their rates right, their pings appear normal but they skip all over the fucking place."

This sounds like a short parody of my parody does it not? Well that is what you called it, right. Hmmm, because they don't set their rates right? Do you mean they may be altering something to make themselves harder to hit but they are still just normal? I'm sorry to you they are terrible players? Which mean you are so much better? You just gave a classic example of a hack or cheat that is not detectable and you yourself even said they were possibly doing it but that doesn't make them hackers? Hackers are cheaters, cheaters are hackers. If you alter the rate at which your packets are being sent to the server so that it makes you hard to hit you are HACKING. If you altered the game in ANY way to give yourself an advantage over people playing the game normally you are HACKING. Some might call it glitching or exploiting but it's all the same to me... you are cheating. And I am not saying you are but again you seem to be going way beyond trying to prove to us that there aren't hacks that are hard to detect... yet, you just gave us an example of one. Thanks for painting yourself into a corner. I promise you I will not come back with a response since you clearly see things in a different light. Sooner or later those rose colored glasses will come off or break. Take it easy kid...

What makes my statement and yours different is that I'm claiming, the game was behaving strangely but I know it's related to the clients of those players and the way they have their cl_cmdrate, cl_updaterate, and rate set. It's not a goal of theirs to set those incorrectly to impart them an advantage as another side effect will be that they themselves can't hit shit also in CS those are supposed to be configured, servers tell you what to set yours to upon entry (66tick 100tick etc.). Whereas you would look at the same people and claim they're hacking. Obviously those things aren't the same in BF3 but analogous issues can cause similar behavior.

you seem to be going way beyond trying to prove to us that there aren't hacks that are hard to detect
YOU HAVE A READING COMPREHENSION PROBLEM.
 
Avatar 17249
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
62. Re: Battlefield 3 Bans Follow-up Feb 12, 2012, 11:51 ^Drag0n^
 
Sepharo wrote on Feb 11, 2012, 00:50:
You're suggesting that this guy has subtle hacks that work like this:
Rarely take damage in frontal one on one gunfights, somehow play faster than the reality of networking allows, selectively allow self to be killed if damage comes from behind, keep a normal score to avoid suspicion (what?).

I Rotflmao'd.

^D^
 
Avatar 55075
 
"Never start a fight, but always finish it."
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
61. Re: Battlefield 3 Bans Follow-up Feb 12, 2012, 10:08 Paranoid Jack
 
Look BF3 Hacks Galore > Nope No Hacks or Cheaters Here

Not sure why I am wasting my time but here goes... one last time. We are not on dial up anymore and latency can't help you explain away all the hacks that are out there. So glad you supposedly never see them. You can wear blinders all you like it matters not to me. Oh, and your breakdown made me LMAO, thanks.

"I just got done playing a few hours of CS, some guys were incredibly hard to hit while others were easy. It's not because they were hackers, they were terrible. It's because they don't set their rates right, their pings appear normal but they skip all over the fucking place."

This sounds like a short parody of my parody does it not? Well that is what you called it, right. Hmmm, because they don't set their rates right? Do you mean they may be altering something to make themselves harder to hit but they are still just normal? I'm sorry to you they are terrible players? Which mean you are so much better? You just gave a classic example of a hack or cheat that is not detectable and you yourself even said they were possibly doing it but that doesn't make them hackers? Hackers are cheaters, cheaters are hackers. If you alter the rate at which your packets are being sent to the server so that it makes you hard to hit you are HACKING. If you altered the game in ANY way to give yourself an advantage over people playing the game normally you are HACKING. Some might call it glitching or exploiting but it's all the same to me... you are cheating. And I am not saying you are but again you seem to be going way beyond trying to prove to us that there aren't hacks that are hard to detect... yet, you just gave us an example of one. Thanks for painting yourself into a corner. I promise you I will not come back with a response since you clearly see things in a different light. Sooner or later those rose colored glasses will come off or break. Take it easy kid...
 
Avatar 11537
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
60. Re: Battlefield 3 Bans Follow-up Feb 11, 2012, 00:50 Sepharo
 
Well I told myself I would only break down the quoted bit sentence by sentence if you once again claimed I overlooked something...
So here it goes:

Last night this guy would kill me every time even if I had already shot him numerous times spending most of a clip on him.
Okay we've established a guy is killing you every time even though you spend an entire clip on him.

He rarely took any damage when I was hitting him.
Not that he never took damage, he wasn't invincible. And when you say you're hitting him the only evidence to go off of is the indicator which isn't without it's own flakiness, but let's say it's working perfectly. Even then you can be hitting in the foot with every 5th bullet.

And the only time I ever killed him was when I caught him with his back to me.
Wait, so now you're killing him just fine? Ahh his hacks must not be active all the time, only when he can see you (disregard the other players).

It was as if he was hosting the server if you know what I mean.
So it was like he had all the advantages that playing with a low ping would grant you.

He had a clear latency advantage though his ping was between high thirties to low sixties.
Wait, so he had normal ping.

Also you have to take into account that if it was skill then why were his scores in line with everyone else?
Because he's a normal player?

If he was that good his scores should have reflected that but I played with him for hours and his scores never stood out he was just near the top ever time.
Oh, because he's a normal good player.

If you are out gunned by somebody good that is one thing but just being out gunned ever single time even when you had the guy dead to rights that is something else. What else is there besides lag? Hacks of course.
It's BF3, it's the server, it's the internet.

but for a couple hours straight?
I just got done playing a few hours of CS, some guys were incredibly hard to hit while others were easy. It's not because they were hackers, they were terrible. It's because they don't set their rates right, their pings appear normal but they skip all over the fucking place.

You conveniently over looked parts of my statements (as you still do) but it's all good.
No I did not.

Just because something seems odd to you or your doing poorly (sorry, generally speaking) is not evidence of hacking. Your example still reads like a parody and based on the text alone (obviously I didn't see this guy) that wouldn't be bannable.

You're suggesting that this guy has subtle hacks that work like this:
Rarely take damage in frontal one on one gunfights, somehow play faster than the reality of networking allows, selectively allow self to be killed if damage comes from behind, keep a normal score to avoid suspicion (what?).
 
Avatar 17249
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
59. Re: Battlefield 3 Bans Follow-up Feb 10, 2012, 23:42 Paranoid Jack
 
If you just mean this is going on and on for far too long you're right, I just hate being misinterpreted]

This... and me2. You said it best. You obviously weren't there. And yes...

I unload clips onto people all the time and either hit nothing or even get hit indicators but do little to no damage on the kill cam... This happens to me in ALL online FPS. Whether it's lag, choke, ping, bullet registration, bugs, or you name it, I don't think those same players that are my targets or my targeters are hacking.

Yeah, I see it all the time too... but for a couple hours straight? Nope. You conveniently over looked parts of my statements (as you still do) but it's all good. Please, no more... you feel strongly there are few hacks out there. But I having played the game around two hundred hours. And I know you are wrong.

Lets just agree to disagree.
 
Avatar 11537
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
58. Re: Battlefield 3 Bans Follow-up Feb 9, 2012, 23:07 Sepharo
 
Methinks you think good players and game quirkiness / registration issues are evidence of cheating afoot.

Sure there are hackers, sure there are probably ones that are nearly undetectable but I don't think they're as common as apparently the rest of the world does.

Now about your paragraph I've referred to multiple times. I originally said it read like a parody post because you specifically mention his normal ping and normal score and then end with "What else is there besides lag? Hacks of course."

Multiple posts then argue as if I said that hackers don't exist despite specifically mentioning in every post that I don't believe that. Then in a reply I reduced your argument to the points I found ridiculous as example of what my point was about. You claimed I twisted, I claimed I summarized and explained why.

Now here I am explaining myself for a third time: I find your evidence flimsy and wouldn't claim cheats in the same situation as written. Obviously I wasn't there and didn't see what you saw, perhaps it was more blatant than I'm reading. But your specific case is not important to me, it's the idea in general that such a situation is adamantly declared cheating on such shaky grounds.

I unload clips onto people all the time and either hit nothing or even get hit indicators but do little to no damage on the kill cam... This happens to me in ALL online FPS. Whether it's lag, choke, ping, bullet registration, bugs, or you name it, I don't think those same players that are my targets or my targeters are hacking.

Now if they're running faster than possible, they're flying through the sky, shooting people from across the map, fine scream cheats all you want.

thou dost protest too much!
If you're implying I hack or something, it's implications like that that cause me to respond like this.
If you just mean this is going on and on for far too long you're right, I just hate being misinterpreted.
 
Avatar 17249
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
57. Re: Battlefield 3 Bans Follow-up Feb 9, 2012, 22:26 Paranoid Jack
 
Me thinks you have a reading comprehension issue....

I never mention that he killed me quickly or that it was suspiciously quick. I never said I couldn't hit him as well as he hit me. Those are things you are interjecting into what I said. I said he was able to kill me even after I had shot him repeatedly and then he showed no damage to his health. And the only time I ever killed him was with his back to me. Yet his scores were in line with mine and everyone else near the top of the scoreboard. Not to mention you skip over all the other examples I gave, strange.

The game has hit detection or have you not played it? So when you hit somebody you see an indication of that. So if I can see I have repeatedly hit him and yet he kills me with no damage showing on his tag when the game shows me who killed me then that would be suspicious to anyone with common sense, would it not?

Also, me thinks... thou dost protest too much!
 
Avatar 11537
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
56. Re: Battlefield 3 Bans Follow-up Feb 5, 2012, 23:46 Sepharo
 
Paranoid Jack wrote on Feb 5, 2012, 14:31:
Sepharo wrote on Feb 3, 2012, 19:46:
As Paranoid put it: He has 60 ping, a normal score, and kills me quickly, quicker than others, therefore he must cheat.

Too funny you are complaining about other twisting your words and then you do the same?

Well, I actually said they were twisting my argument because I've never denied that hackers (and even subtle ones) exist, I just don't think it's as prevalent as others believe. I summed your comment up in a way to highlight its ridiculousness but I don't think I've twisted it too much. I'll repaste the portion for comparison:

Last night this guy would kill me every time even if I had already shot him numerous times spending most of a clip on him. He rarely took any damage when I was hitting him. And the only time I ever killed him was when I caught him with his back to me. It was as if he was hosting the server if you know what I mean. He had a clear latency advantage though his ping was between high thirties to low sixties. Also you have to take into account that if it was skill then why were his scores in line with everyone else? If he was that good his scores should have reflected that but I played with him for hours and his scores never stood out he was just near the top ever time. If you are out gunned by somebody good that is one thing but just being out gunned ever single time even when you had the guy dead to rights that is something else. What else is there besides lag? Hacks of course.

That just sounds crazy to me and I think my summary still matches what you wrote. A player was able to kill you very quickly, strangely quickly even, but it seemed that you could not hit him as well as he could hit you. You mentioned that he had normal ping and a normal score and somehow used this combined with him killing you as evidence of cheating... Huh
 
Avatar 17249
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
55. Re: Battlefield 3 Bans Follow-up Feb 5, 2012, 14:31 Paranoid Jack
 
Sepharo wrote on Feb 3, 2012, 19:46:
Bhruic wrote on Feb 3, 2012, 10:05:
As Paranoid put it: He has 60 ping, a normal score, and kills me quickly, quicker than others, therefore he must cheat.

Too funny you are complaining about other twisting your words and then you do the same?
 
Avatar 11537
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
54. Re: Battlefield 3 Bans Follow-up Feb 4, 2012, 00:11 Verno
 
Subtle hacks are just hacks, people were just using it as an example because others started in with the anecdotes about how the game doesn't have cheaters because they don't see any. The point was that they likely have run into them but didn't observe it. Not every hack is a very obvious guy who is knifing you in a tank from his uncap. They might not be as damaging to the gameplay experience but it's there and needs to be addressed nonetheless. It sounds like everyone agrees on that so wonderful. If you never see any, great. Count yourself lucky and hopefully you never will after Dice fixes up the net code (something they claim to be doing anyway).

This comment was edited on Feb 4, 2012, 00:20.
 
Avatar 51617
 
Playing: Everquest Next Alpha, Diablo 3, Bravely Default
Watching: Evidence, Longmire, Chained
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
53. Re: Battlefield 3 Bans Follow-up Feb 3, 2012, 19:46 Sepharo
 
Bhruic wrote on Feb 3, 2012, 10:05:
You have anecdotal evidence that there are lots of "subtle" cheaters and I have anecdotal evidence that there are not lots of "subtle" cheaters.

How exactly can you have evidence that people aren't subtly cheating, when the entire nature of subtly cheating is that it's extremely difficulty to identify? You could play for the next 10 years, and never be able to tell for sure, for example, that someone was using a "no-recoil" cheat.

Why the hell do you guys keep twisting my argument into "there are no (subtle) cheaters" ?

Also, so you mean to tell me that I can't tell for sure if they're not subtly cheating but you can tell almost for sure that they are? I guess the difference here is that I see someone doing well and think "Ahh they're pretty good" whereas you guys think "Ahh they're probably subtly cheating." Then, with an awesome case of confirmation bias find "Oh yes, I see now that they are cheating."

As Paranoid put it: He has 60 ping, a normal score, and kills me quickly, quicker than others, therefore he must cheat.

This comment was edited on Feb 3, 2012, 19:52.
 
Avatar 17249
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
52. Re: Battlefield 3 Bans Follow-up Feb 3, 2012, 10:31 Verno
 
Yeah, for example a popular one is the box hack. All it does is put little blue boxes around players and vehicles. Doesn't sound like a big deal but you can be in a jet hitting stuff from across the map with rocket pods and there isn't shit he can do about it. I've observed someone doing this on Firestorm and while it was difficult to detect at first, you start to be able to pick out the differences. Someone literally can't see targets at that distance without spotting and spotting is disabled on my server.

Another one is part of a multi-hack that lets you see when people are aiming at you. That one is incredibly difficult to detect, you could play all day and never know people were using it.
 
Avatar 51617
 
Playing: Everquest Next Alpha, Diablo 3, Bravely Default
Watching: Evidence, Longmire, Chained
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
51. Re: Battlefield 3 Bans Follow-up Feb 3, 2012, 10:05 Bhruic
 
You have anecdotal evidence that there are lots of "subtle" cheaters and I have anecdotal evidence that there are not lots of "subtle" cheaters.

How exactly can you have evidence that people aren't subtly cheating, when the entire nature of subtly cheating is that it's extremely difficulty to identify? You could play for the next 10 years, and never be able to tell for sure, for example, that someone was using a "no-recoil" cheat.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
50. Re: Battlefield 3 Bans Follow-up Feb 2, 2012, 08:57 Verno
 
Sepharo wrote on Feb 1, 2012, 18:52:
You and others have made claims that you know when someone is subtly cheating and my response is that you're more often than not wrong, not vice-versa.

I don't know, that seems like a stretch to me. I don't think anyone claimed they could pick every cheater out of a crowd or something. It's always a case by case scenario. As both a server admin and a player who has spent a lot of time playing the game, I consider cheating (subtle or otherwise) to be an annoyingly prevalent issue in this game, whether you have personally run into it or believe it to be a problem is besides the point to me. I don't think there is a vast expense of maligned, skilled players who are running insane infantry counts while being unjustly accused of being cheaters by people who can actually do something about it. I'm excluding the "hax" baby criers from the discussion obviously because they accuse practically everyone who kills them of it.

Speaking in general, I can still enjoy the game but it makes it more difficult to do so when I'm either dealing with cheaters or being forced to tolerate them elsewhere. Dice makes it too easy for people to cheat, which leaves even more room for uninformed players to make false accusations and for cheaters to hide in the grey area you speak of. The community has made some strides in automating this stuff to some degree but the reality is that Dice needs to make sure client side data is sanitized before the server trusts it which would close off the majority of these hacks.

I THINK YOU DON'T GIVE ITS PREVALENCE ENOUGH CREDIT BUT FAIR ENOUGH SIR

This comment was edited on Feb 2, 2012, 09:12.
 
Avatar 51617
 
Playing: Everquest Next Alpha, Diablo 3, Bravely Default
Watching: Evidence, Longmire, Chained
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
49. Re: Battlefield 3 Bans Follow-up Feb 1, 2012, 18:52 Sepharo
 
Verno wrote on Feb 1, 2012, 09:45:
Sepharo wrote on Jan 31, 2012, 19:31:
You have anecdotal evidence that there are lots of "subtle" cheaters and I have anecdotal evidence that there are not lots of "subtle" cheaters.

The cheats exist and are a binary thing, it's not opinion. What percentage of the player base using them is anyone's guess but that's not the point. People want cheating addressed as much as possible, it shouldn't be handwaved away with some silliness about player skills. Cheating will always exist in some shape or form but right now Dice allows far too much client side control which makes it too easy for these things to exist at all, subtle or otherwise. It is a design issue that needs to be addressed regardless of how good the player base is at this or other unrelated games.

People moan about lots of things in BF3 that don't bug me either but that doesn't mean they aren't valid problems in the game.

You must be confusing my anecdotes with other people's replies. My only point all along has been the one you're claiming isn't the point. I don't think "subtle" cheating is a big problem, it exists sure, but it's not as widespread as people believe and the majority of people they're accusing are likely innocent.

You and others have made claims that you know when someone is subtly cheating and my response is that you're more often than not wrong, not vice-versa. Blatant hacking is different, anyone could pick that out. I think the distinctions have been pretty clearly made between "subtle" and blatant in this thread so I won't go down that road.

VERNO, I THINK EFFORTS SHOULD BE MADE TO PREVENT CHEATING, I'M NOT ARGUING AGAINST THAT
 
Avatar 17249
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
48. Re: Battlefield 3 Bans Follow-up Feb 1, 2012, 11:33 Veterator
 
I don't envy admins, I've seen far too many of them spend most of their evening investigating cheaters, banning, and then having to put up with people who are stacking teams or just generally ruining the experience for everyone else on the server through attitude or commentary.

Cheating is by far the most time consuming to investigate, and TF2 has the tools to allow someone to determine it......if they spend the time to catch the recordings and playback through them. They may not be perfect, but it's more than games want to offer anymore.

The real thrust of the problem is that unless there is an admin around, it's a huge pain in the ass to report them since most of it's not in game. I think it should be standard fare anymore to have the tools to prove cheating, but they should also go a step further and allow for people to submit cheating on a case by case while in game.

Then allow the admins to filter by how many reports there where in a specific period, and try to narrow it down by the timing as to when to check the logs. Or if one guy is constantly calling out people for cheating, just throw all of his complaints in the trash automatically.

It could certainly be made easier....because I don't think they can provide a fullproof system to prevent cheats, but they can certainly provide a full proof lock out system to ban people from servers and report them on up for account bans to the game developers/publishers. It's just a matter of capturing the evidence and passing it up for review. And I think it's intentional on their part to cut out those tools...so they can't be expected to review them. But in this case, the stat profiles are yet another avenue they should be using. Although I suspect the stat profiles may not be 100% proof since servers/intrusions/whatever could tamper with the numbers and provide false hits.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
47. Re: Battlefield 3 Bans Follow-up Feb 1, 2012, 09:45 Verno
 
Sepharo wrote on Jan 31, 2012, 19:31:
You have anecdotal evidence that there are lots of "subtle" cheaters and I have anecdotal evidence that there are not lots of "subtle" cheaters.

The cheats exist and are a binary thing, it's not opinion. What percentage of the player base using them is anyone's guess but that's not the point. People want cheating addressed as much as possible, it shouldn't be handwaved away with some silliness about player skills. Cheating will always exist in some shape or form but right now Dice allows far too much client side control which makes it too easy for these things to exist at all, subtle or otherwise. It is a design issue that needs to be addressed regardless of how good the player base is at this or other unrelated games.

People moan about lots of things in BF3 that don't bug me either but that doesn't mean they aren't valid problems in the game.
 
Avatar 51617
 
Playing: Everquest Next Alpha, Diablo 3, Bravely Default
Watching: Evidence, Longmire, Chained
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
46. Re: Battlefield 3 Bans Follow-up Feb 1, 2012, 01:03 Paranoid Jack
 
You're still playing counter strike? WoW


 
Avatar 11537
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
45. Re: Battlefield 3 Bans Follow-up Feb 1, 2012, 00:27 Sepharo
 
Paranoid Jack wrote on Feb 1, 2012, 00:24:
Sepharo wrote on Jan 31, 2012, 19:31:
You have anecdotal evidence that there are lots of "subtle" cheaters and I have anecdotal evidence that there are not lots of "subtle" cheaters.

The only thing we can be sure of is blatant cheaters, ones who get caught and ones who do impossible things (normally constrained by speed, distance, etc). I have yet to see a blatant cheater (I know they exist) and if I'm just not noticing "subtle" cheaters then I guess it doesn't really bother me. Apparently their subtle cheats are not better than my vanilla client.

I think the main thing to consider and you said it yourself..."I haven't played too long (I think it's around 30hrs)". I've got more time playing since my account was wiped and three times that before it was wiped. Once you've play a hundred plus hours let's see what you think, aye?

I'm not even sure why any of us are shocked (well, most of us aren't) since the BF games have been bug infested and hack riddled since the very first. Not to mention DICE never seems to support them as much as they should...

I'm also speaking generally about hacking in FPS as a whole. I've been playing the supposedly most hacked game of all time for 12 years now and have very rarely (sounds hard to believe but I'm not exaggerating) seen cheaters. Obviously I know they exist because I see the ban logs at my favorite servers but it's far from a huge issue, even before the days of VAC and PB.

This comment was edited on Feb 1, 2012, 00:35.
 
Avatar 17249
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
64 Replies. 4 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 ] Older >


footer

.. .. ..

Blue's News logo