Call of Duty: Ghosts Bans

A thread on the Call of Duty forums and another on Reddit are indications that Activision has been actively banning cheaters from Call of Duty: Ghosts for violating the Code of Conduct for playing the military shooter sequel online. MP1st reports that these seem to be centered on PS3/PS4 players, noting Activision responds that “bans are put in place after an account has been investigated into. Any code of conduct violations WILL result in a ban. The user is responsible for all actions taken on the account." They add that "All bans are final and will not be reversed. Nor do we provide any additional information or specifics in regards to the ban," inspiring a petition requesting that Activision make its banning policies more transparent. In spite of all that, a more recent forum thread says that some users are having their bans lifted, kicking off with this comment: "It seems as if someone has been listening to us because I just checked my account on COD Ghosts and my permanent ban and console ban has been lifted and everything is back to how it was before the ban. It feels good to know that somebody paid attention and that my innocence has been proven. I hope you innocent people out there have also been cleared."
View : : :
10 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  ] Older
10.
 
Re: Call of Duty: Ghosts Bans
Mar 18, 2014, 13:40
10.
Re: Call of Duty: Ghosts Bans Mar 18, 2014, 13:40
Mar 18, 2014, 13:40
 
Frags4Fun wrote on Mar 18, 2014, 09:31:
There's a gaping hole in your theory though. You must be assuming that all cheaters are participating in these forums that you speak of in order for your theory to be valid and we definitely don't have enough data for you to make that claim.

Of course I'm not, it's just an example of observable behavior.


The people that I am theorizing about would likely avoid such trolling activities and would want to hide their cheating activities even from other cheaters. It would be their dirty little secret which would destroy them if their peers found out and all the work that they did to fit in would be wasted. That's basic psychology.

The fact is, we simply don't know what drives every cheater and to bunch them all up into a single category is silly. If you go and look at many of the cheaters profiles (who have been caught), you will see that their scores are way to low to be using the cheats to grief. You really should expand your mind and consider that there is more than one mindset when it comes to cheaters. Like any group of people, there will be differing motives which lead them into similar circles.

Until you've actually put together a reasonably large sample of "many of the cheaters profiles," I will remain thoroughly unconvinced that competitive cheating happens on a scale that warrants all the paranoia going on here. As long as you're going to throw around "basic psychology" like every Internet knowitall, could you at least back it up with some basic research?

Of course, to do so, you would also have to account for...

Drazula wrote on Mar 18, 2014, 11:58:
Talk about an authoritative fallacy. You guys are making a huge assumption that everyone that is banned is cheating. People have been banned for doing nothing wrong. If Activision does not give users the ability to have their ban reviewed, they are heading for a class action lawsuit.
[Edit]Turns out that the cache on the PS3/PS4s is causing erroneous bans.

...and you can't. Without solid numbers on how many false positives there are, you can't make an estimate on how many of those bans, let alone the ones whose stats point to them not having blatant aimbots, are actual "competitive cheaters."

There is a long list of subtle cheats designed to give a slight advantage and they are the ones that rarely get detected, unlike the older types of aimbots and wallhacks that griefers tend to use and are obvious to the skilled players.

How often these are detected is also purely speculation.

I would also think that wallhacks would be on the "competitive" end of cheats, since they provide a passive advantage that isn't readily apparent. Of course, since it's not readily apparent, it's just as wide open to false accusations and the same uncertainty about how many players are really cheating with them, as well as how many players are flagged as false positives for them when they're not actually using them; I'd be interested to know how many players have experience getting accused of wallhacking after a lucky shot while rounding a corner, versus how many are actually wallhacking.

BTW, I like how you twist my words. For instance, I said some of the cheaters and you changed it to most cheaters. That says a lot about your close-minded way of thinking. So I wonder which one of us is actually entertained by this conversation.

As long as we're talking about twisting words: "you're just providing entertainment" was obviously referring to any given hypothetical player who loudly QQs without a hint of self awareness, thus providing the reaction that feeds any given hypothetical griefer's entertainment, so you can go ahead and wonder all you want.
NOT THE BEES! NOT THE BEES THEY'RE IN MY EYES AARRGRHGHGGAFHGHFGHFG!
Avatar 51686
9.
 
Re: Call of Duty: Ghosts Bans
Mar 18, 2014, 11:58
9.
Re: Call of Duty: Ghosts Bans Mar 18, 2014, 11:58
Mar 18, 2014, 11:58
 
Talk about an authoritative fallacy. You guys are making a huge assumption that everyone that is banned is cheating. People have been banned for doing nothing wrong. If Activision does not give users the ability to have their ban reviewed, they are heading for a class action lawsuit.
[Edit]Turns out that the cache on the PS3/PS4s is causing erroneous bans.
8.
 
Re: Call of Duty: Ghosts Bans
Mar 18, 2014, 09:31
8.
Re: Call of Duty: Ghosts Bans Mar 18, 2014, 09:31
Mar 18, 2014, 09:31
 
Dr. D. Schreber wrote on Mar 17, 2014, 21:20:
Frags4Fun wrote on Mar 17, 2014, 15:31:
JayDeath wrote on Mar 17, 2014, 15:06:
It never occurred to me that gamers can be so twisted to buy another copy of the game after being banned for hacking just to hack and risk getting banned again. Those people must be really disturbed and sociopathic.

I suspect that some of the cheaters are just trying to be competitive with their friends who are skilled at the game and it might just be their way of fitting in. On the other hand, many of them are probably mentally disturbed like you said.

They're just griefers, they're not trying to fool people into thinking they're good, they're not trying to be competitive. Many people who enjoy this type of behavior have no problem paying for another copy of the game, because they have to, to keep having their fun. Do a little google-fu and you can find the forums cheaters hang out on easily, you won't find many posts from people asking what hax is best to be competitive.

I've never understood how so many people go off the rails screaming "WHO DO THEY THINK THEY'RE FOOLING!" and the like. They're not trying to fool anyone. The entire point is to ruin the fun of legitimate players. To assume that most cheaters are trying to be competitive is to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the behavior. It's no different than trying to have a debate on a forum with someone blatantly trolling; it's not going to work because they're not there to have a debate, and the fact that you're trying is just entertaining.

There's a gaping hole in your theory though. You must be assuming that all cheaters are participating in these forums that you speak of in order for your theory to be valid and we definitely don't have enough data for you to make that claim.

The people that I am theorizing about would likely avoid such trolling activities and would want to hide their cheating activities even from other cheaters. It would be their dirty little secret which would destroy them if their peers found out and all the work that they did to fit in would be wasted. That's basic psychology.

The fact is, we simply don't know what drives every cheater and to bunch them all up into a single category is silly. If you go and look at many of the cheaters profiles (who have been caught), you will see that their scores are way to low to be using the cheats to grief. You really should expand your mind and consider that there is more than one mindset when it comes to cheaters. Like any group of people, there will be differing motives which lead them into similar circles.

There is a long list of subtle cheats designed to give a slight advantage and they are the ones that rarely get detected, unlike the older types of aimbots and wallhacks that griefers tend to use and are obvious to the skilled players.

We really need a lot more data to come to any definitive conclusion on this subject.

BTW, I like how you twist my words. For instance, I said some of the cheaters and you changed it to most cheaters. That says a lot about your close-minded way of thinking. So I wonder which one of us is actually entertained by this conversation.

This comment was edited on Mar 18, 2014, 09:55.
“We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.” William Casey, CIA Director 1981-1987
Avatar 57016
7.
 
Re: Call of Duty: Ghosts Bans
Mar 17, 2014, 21:20
7.
Re: Call of Duty: Ghosts Bans Mar 17, 2014, 21:20
Mar 17, 2014, 21:20
 
Frags4Fun wrote on Mar 17, 2014, 15:31:
JayDeath wrote on Mar 17, 2014, 15:06:
It never occurred to me that gamers can be so twisted to buy another copy of the game after being banned for hacking just to hack and risk getting banned again. Those people must be really disturbed and sociopathic.

I suspect that some of the cheaters are just trying to be competitive with their friends who are skilled at the game and it might just be their way of fitting in. On the other hand, many of them are probably mentally disturbed like you said.

They're just griefers, they're not trying to fool people into thinking they're good, they're not trying to be competitive. Many people who enjoy this type of behavior have no problem paying for another copy of the game, because they have to, to keep having their fun. Do a little google-fu and you can find the forums cheaters hang out on easily, you won't find many posts from people asking what hax is best to be competitive.

I've never understood how so many people go off the rails screaming "WHO DO THEY THINK THEY'RE FOOLING!" and the like. They're not trying to fool anyone. The entire point is to ruin the fun of legitimate players. To assume that most cheaters are trying to be competitive is to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the behavior. It's no different than trying to have a debate on a forum with someone blatantly trolling; it's not going to work because they're not there to have a debate, and the fact that you're trying is just entertaining.
NOT THE BEES! NOT THE BEES THEY'RE IN MY EYES AARRGRHGHGGAFHGHFGHFG!
Avatar 51686
6.
 
Re: Call of Duty: Ghosts Bans
Mar 17, 2014, 15:38
6.
Re: Call of Duty: Ghosts Bans Mar 17, 2014, 15:38
Mar 17, 2014, 15:38
 
JayDeath wrote on Mar 17, 2014, 15:06:
It never occurred to me that gamers can be so twisted to buy another copy of the game after being banned for hacking just to hack and risk getting banned again. Those people must be really disturbed and sociopathic.
Well it doesn't really work like that. On the consoles for example, the ban is against the console itself. So to get around being banned you're need to buy a new console, create a new account, and buy a new copy of the game. I really don't see most hackers doing that, especially since Sony long stopped producing hackable PS3s.
5.
 
Re: Call of Duty: Ghosts Bans
Mar 17, 2014, 15:31
5.
Re: Call of Duty: Ghosts Bans Mar 17, 2014, 15:31
Mar 17, 2014, 15:31
 
JayDeath wrote on Mar 17, 2014, 15:06:
It never occurred to me that gamers can be so twisted to buy another copy of the game after being banned for hacking just to hack and risk getting banned again. Those people must be really disturbed and sociopathic.

I suspect that some of the cheaters are just trying to be competitive with their friends who are skilled at the game and it might just be their way of fitting in. On the other hand, many of them are probably mentally disturbed like you said.
“We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.” William Casey, CIA Director 1981-1987
Avatar 57016
4.
 
Re: Call of Duty: Ghosts Bans
Mar 17, 2014, 15:06
4.
Re: Call of Duty: Ghosts Bans Mar 17, 2014, 15:06
Mar 17, 2014, 15:06
 
It never occurred to me that gamers can be so twisted to buy another copy of the game after being banned for hacking just to hack and risk getting banned again. Those people must be really disturbed and sociopathic.
Steam: BenRichards
3.
 
Re: Call of Duty: Ghosts Bans
Mar 17, 2014, 14:25
3.
Re: Call of Duty: Ghosts Bans Mar 17, 2014, 14:25
Mar 17, 2014, 14:25
 
Frags4Fun wrote on Mar 17, 2014, 13:38:
Cutter wrote on Mar 17, 2014, 10:58:
I don't know why I didn't see it before. No wonder EA and Actiblizz don't actually do anything about hax, way better business to ban the haxxo0rs and make them but a new copy instead! So this is where 3/4 of the sales come from on these games.


Bingo!

I've been saying this for years about the battlefield cheaters. If the cheaters can afford to keep buying/paying subs for the cheats then they can afford another copy of the game. Some paid cheats even come with a guarantee that if the user gets banned, they get a new key from the cheat site.

Like you said, it's sort of a good business decision to not go after the cheat sites especially towards the end of life for the product because they actually increase sales with each ban wave. They only need to stomp out the most blatant and obvious cheats as to not drive away their legit player base.

I don't think anyone is this cynical inside the business.
Nor do I think you can prove that this is good business in a way that would make anyone go down this path.

Why do they not go after cheat sites?
How would they go after them? Legal threats? What country are these sites based in?
2.
 
Re: Call of Duty: Ghosts Bans
Mar 17, 2014, 13:38
2.
Re: Call of Duty: Ghosts Bans Mar 17, 2014, 13:38
Mar 17, 2014, 13:38
 
Cutter wrote on Mar 17, 2014, 10:58:
I don't know why I didn't see it before. No wonder EA and Actiblizz don't actually do anything about hax, way better business to ban the haxxo0rs and make them but a new copy instead! So this is where 3/4 of the sales come from on these games.


Bingo!

I've been saying this for years about the battlefield cheaters. If the cheaters can afford to keep buying/paying subs for the cheats then they can afford another copy of the game. Some paid cheats even come with a guarantee that if the user gets banned, they get a new key from the cheat site.

Like you said, it's sort of a good business decision to not go after the cheat sites especially towards the end of life for the product because they actually increase sales with each ban wave. They only need to stomp out the most blatant and obvious cheats as to not drive away their legit player base.
“We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.” William Casey, CIA Director 1981-1987
Avatar 57016
1.
 
Re: Call of Duty: Ghosts Bans
Mar 17, 2014, 10:58
1.
Re: Call of Duty: Ghosts Bans Mar 17, 2014, 10:58
Mar 17, 2014, 10:58
 
I don't know why I didn't see it before. No wonder EA and Actiblizz don't actually do anything about hax, way better business to ban the haxxo0rs and make them but a new copy instead! So this is where 3/4 of the sales come from on these games.

"Joey, do you ever hang around the gymnasium?" - Captain Clarence Oveur
Avatar 25394
10 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  ] Older