Jump to content
Forum rules

UubeNubeh DaWog

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    2260

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by UubeNubeh DaWog

  4. Posted

    14 hours ago, Glaciers said:

    then i guess we're back to "if you don't trust the ceo of the company why are you here?", unless you're implying that the transcript thread is a fake that links to a fake twitch q&a stream in which case im flattered anyone thinks i'm that devious

     

    either we take the only official information on the matter as truth or having any of these discussions is pointless because everything we know so far could be lies

     

     

    correct

     

     

    "fairfight is not working correctly" isnt really that ambiguous, thats pretty definitive imo - im not sure how else i could take that statement

     

    indepth info probably wasnt given out because at the time ff was still in limited use and the plan was to move forward with both ff and battleye as anticheats

     

     

    i guess so

     

    we (or at least i) have no idea about easyanticheat's supposed server side components, is it a heuristic anticheat similar to ff?

     

     

     

    Im not saying MattScott is completely without confidence. However look at CEO's from EA, Bioware or Bethesda in the last year or so. Based on what the things these CEO's have been saying the last year you would think these CEO's are the best and most caring in the world and leaders of the best and most caring game companies in the world, so why arent they?

    Evidence to the contrary. I think its pretty fair to not implicitly take a CEO's word as fact without a reasonable amount of evidence to back them up.

     

    Look at any of the current issues we have, Ddosing for example. New "Anti ddossing" measures go live and when a large amount of people still have a problem and the servers still go down, is it not fair to question the legitimacy of said new measures?

    Im sure everyone believes that something has changed, something has happened or improved, i do too but with ddosing we experience the problem first hand so when the intended solution doesnt go as expected we all go "wtf". Right?

    Thats what im doing here, except in this case we're yet to see what the problems were at first hand, which in my opinion is not a stretch to explain. Instead we are left without information to make our own informed decisions.

     

    "Fairfight not working correctly" Doesnt tell us anything, is it really a problem that couldnt be fixed? Why did it take another company to "figure" out so soon after acquiring the original company that the whole program was unsalvageable and needed to be replaced when it was marketed as the next best anti cheat at the time?

    For all we know it the problems could have been fixed with the updates, was it updated before it was scrapped?

     

    Public healthcare doesnt work in america.

    Heres a real life example of an issue that is constantly turned into an ambiguous problem when there are solutions, but the problems are never explored properly.

     

    Even if it wasnt given out at the time, which is a fair call to make if its still in use, why not explain it now?

    Im sure there are enough differences between EAC and FF that would make that kind of info irrelevant otherwise you'd just have people switching between anti cheats quicker than opening a .bat file.

     

    I think its pretty reasonable to have people outside as an objective opinion with the knowledge to back up said claims about the workings of an anti cheat or systems not currently being used as an explanation to why they were removed.

     

    Im pretty sure you've said it yourself, LO is a business and here to make money. Good will comes second.

     

    Merged.

     

    13 hours ago, Fortune Runner said:

    I would have to say no because of how the Engine Updates may make it usable again

    Im not sure how you got to this conclusion.

     

    Isnt the reason the engine update is such a big deal because a lot if not a large majority of internal systems will be changing?

  5. Posted

    30 minutes ago, Glaciers said:

    its not misinformation, but i guess there's no way to prove that to you so whatever

     

    Don't you think it's misinformation to post ambiguous statements? There's no proof of these statements are true either.

     

    We don't know what the updates would have done for fair fight if helped at all.

     

    Also if fairfight was not working as intended do you believe matt scotts ambiguous statement about it should be taken at face value?

    Since any other subject matt has discussed has been far more in depth about behind the scenes knowledge.

     

    Since fairfight is no longer being used wouldn't it be fair to release that kind of information without harming the game?

  6. Posted · Edited by UubeNubeh DaWog

    33 minutes ago, Fortune Runner said:

    I don't know if i can count FF since it wasn't working right for APB and didn't need to be bypassed because of it.

    to be technical was it broken or just not working right for APB? kinda the same kinda not so I'm curious.

     

    Of course you can, its an anti cheat that cant be bypassed.

     

    Its efficiency is a different topic.

    FF being behavioral meant it was a fine line between catching cheaters and catching people who look like cheaters. Since the majority of the gaming community cant stand one false ban you have to make the system more lenient which can mean letting some people through.

     

    We have no idea how efficient those updates for FF would have been. Since its not a client side anti cheat they wouldn't be updating holes in the system. How obsolete you think a behavioral system becomes over time when the game doesnt change dramatically is probably the only thing up for debate right now.

  7. Posted · Edited by UubeNubeh DaWog

    7 hours ago, Zian said:

    If you're going by just how he composed the post alone, then you're taking him too literal in his composition of the post. Doing so opens the door for dismissing him, diminishing the validity of his frustrations, and gives permission for trolls to ruin his day.

     

    It was pretty easy to see that he didn't mean legitimate R195 players.

     

    I fixed your post.

     

    If he wanted to say that, he would have. He has the tools to convey his message and in this case it was clear what he meant. This is putting words in his mouth and even if this idea was the case people should be more responsible for their words.

     

    There is nothing that happens after R195 that changes what a cheating player is.

    So if OP was talking about cheating 195 vs legit 195 he would have specified.

     

    Dont let this be you kids, be responsible and take accountability for your words and you wont have people like this using your words for their ideas.

  9. Posted · Edited by UubeNubeh DaWog

    Lax policies? Lax methods?

    We've had 3 anti cheat changes thanks to the community because what ever the result was of "a better anti cheat" was never enough. Even if anti cheat programs could detect people within in the hour of a player starting an account, you would still see cheaters.

     

    Remember the goat hour streams during fairfight?

     

    "A simple account ban". How is that simple, or lax? That is the harshest punishment you can give an account holder, blocking that account from the game indefinitely.

     

    We've had, Punkbuster. Fairfight. Battleye, and now EAC.

     

    Do you know how many Anti cheats are left?

     

    You cant build a wall an expect it to stand forever.

     

    It looks like you want some kind of fantasy where cheaters are caught and given capital punishment before cheating is a thought in their mind, all of this unrealistic. There are better solutions than this threads idea.

     

    PS. You know they have an in house anti cheat aswell right? Its not just "one" anti cheat. Also, EAC is a client and server sided anti cheat.

    Did you even research anything for this thread?

    • Like 3

  13. Posted · Edited by UubeNubeh DaWog

    13 hours ago, CookiePuss said:

    I'm just shocked this heavily derailed thread is still open.

     

    This dude is not going to stop arguing... ever. 

    Obviously a persons narrative isn't validated until everyone who argues against their subjective opinions is blocked.

    Asgerland had 1 post left before he was blocked. He was already getting straw manned.

  14. Posted · Edited by UubeNubeh DaWog

    32 minutes ago, Fortune Runner said:

    Can someone translate this to where it came from and where it needs to go etc

    Because I'm lost as  @#$% right now

    They emotionally disliked i wasn't as upset as them due to the lack of evidence that was otherwise suggested, then straw maned me into advocating for harassment, while playing the victim. So they put me on ignore.

    Really nice play there, gotta say.

    I'd go to the superbowl champion ships for that one.

  16. Posted · Edited by UubeNubeh DaWog

    5 hours ago, Zian said:

    That's in the forum rules. It's a good read, and I suggest it.

    Hey you found the rules that apply to everyone, good job.

     

    5 hours ago, Zian said:

    Continuing to do so is, as apparently members of this forum have decided to quote him in their posts after I already have him on ignore.

    Other people posting someone elses comment is not harassment by him.

     

    5 hours ago, Zian said:

    There isn't the need for someone to crusade at making slander over an opinion. It's rather immature, and shows a lack of intellectual development.

    Says "Slander is bad mkay"

    Slanders someone.

     

    5 hours ago, Zian said:

    Your only goal seems to justify poor behavior.

    My goal is to not push obligations onto people who have no reason having said obligations.

    Volunteers don't represent a company.

    If you haven't noticed a large chunk of the forums have a custom title, should we be held to the same obligations that you're talking about?

     

    TBH this snowflake PC culture isn't interesting in the first place, it conflates every social issue we currently have for the sake of one person at a given time. It needs to die off already.

    One insult is not harassment.

    • Thanks 1

  17. Posted

    4 hours ago, Zian said:

    Actually harassment is against the teams of service, and a moderator in another thread already said that volunteers and staff violating the TOS should be reported to staff so they can be dealt with accordingly.

     

    Thus he is held to a higher standard in the eyes of Little Orbit. Sorry but you're simply just attempting to enable him in being despicable.

    That is the exact same standard as anyone else.

    Anyone breaking the terms of service should also be reported to staff so they can be dealt with accordingly.

     

    Harassment is a pretty serious claim. Cooky is a number of things but him harassing people is not one of them.

    58 minutes ago, CookiePuss said:

    Bruh you need to calm down. Your tilt is affecting your logic.

     

  20. Posted

    6 hours ago, Zian said:

    It's a privilege.

     

    And if you abuse others while in a position of privilege, that privilege should be removed.

     

    Privilege based on their merits.

    They dont need to play nice, and as far as im aware they're held to the same standards as everyone else and that is ok.

     

    A teacher earned their postion, they can still yell at you for getting things wrong.

    A person with a PHD can still call you stupid.

    A race car driver can still call you a bad driver or dangerous driver

    A pro gamer can still call you a bad gamer.

     

    Are any of these people under an obligation to "Be above" the average person? Nope. They earned their titles and are entitled to use them for their purpose.

    Outside of that they have the same obligations as anyone else, so as long as they dont break the rules as much as anyone else, they're fine.

  21. Posted

    Game would have equally declined as much under G1 if people werent so blind to see that things werent changing. When a new company comes in they expect things to change at the snap of some fingers and bam game fixed, but thats not how it works. So people see that things arent changing the way and like and complain or leave.
    Nothing new is happening here because of LO. Game may have been offline by now if G1 was in charge.

     

    SPCT - San Paro City TESTER.

    Not role model.
    Not community cheer leader
    Not moral support
    Not Helper
     

    Being a Tester has 0 to do with their personality as player with above average involvement in the game.

  23. Posted · Edited by UubeNubeh DaWog

    There is so much wrong here.

     

    For starters, killing someone requires a lot more effort than pressing F on an object or driving to a drop off. So there is a reason scoring a kill rewards a player so much.

    Even being generous here, usually a team will be sitting on top of an objective, causing you to kill them before you even hit the objective, so its kind of a moot point.
     

    The "rewards" for missions currently are already based on team work, the outcome of a mission is not based on one persons performance but your team as a whole and is the reason why the whole team is rewarded at the end.

    Based on what your saying if the rewards only catered to the "top guy" you would never see any rewards below them. Which currently is not true.

    Also, currently, what is the reward for cheating? You get to see the "Your team won" banner more often? There is no k/d tracking, no mission tracking (unless you manually track your missions per day). roles even have a cap and dont go past Rank 16. You can get weekly recaps for your playtime but again you have to manually track any kind of kd, as it just gives raw numbers for the week.


    The only stat tracking of any kind we have is overall kills per character. What stat or object would you point to as a status symbol in APB? How would that translate into an incentive to be "the top" guy and cheat?


    Lastly, you're assigning "bad behavior" to the BASICS of an FPS game, there is nothing wrong about being the "top guy" by getting the most kills in a game that revolves around guns and shooting others.

    Saying it is an incentive to cheat is ridiculous.

     

    Cheating populations are ALWAYS the minority, and we should not be changing game mechanics so that the majority of the population and you, feel better about losing.

    • Like 1

  24. Posted · Edited by UubeNubeh DaWog

    1 hour ago, Westford said:

    The only time that I remember when Name & Shame was allowed by G1,

    was about 3 or 4 years ago.

     

    They had a massive Ban List as a sticky, and said they would keep it open for a while.

    That thread was about 50+ pages before G1 locked it after a year.

     

    This was before FF if I remember correctly.

     

    Yep... good times.

    😁

    I remember the ban list.
    It was the first 200 or so banned under fair fight while it was run in secret for about a month.

    Name and Shame still wasnt allowed outside that one thread. Even if it was allowed there.

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...