MrChan

It failed miserably cos it was clunky and overcomplicated. idk, BR probably wouldn't have saved APB cos the game fundementals are so janky. But RIOT was an extremely poor implementation of BR that was always going to fail.

The guy cheating, but that doesn't mean you can't deal with the guy making other breaches ToS, does it? It's frankly deranged to think otherwise. Again: It's not an either/or situation. You conceded that you were justifiably temp banned for your Balkankreuz, and you've gone and broke the ToS again. Telling someone to kill themselves is not normally considered a trivial breach by any gaming company, regardless of what you or I think. You call my opinion worthless if you want, but at the end of the day, I'm sorry mate, you can't make a convincing case that you've been unfairly treated. All you can hope is that if LO are feeling generous they'll let you back in. Anything else is just a tantrum.

It takes a serious sense of entitlement to think you shouldn't be banned for blatantly breaching the TOS, whilst whining about how cheaters are still in the game and LO should concentrate on them, as if it's an either/or scenario. Weren't you the guy who had a swastika in his uniform too or was that someone else? If so I think LO have made a good call.

Oh Thank God. Baylan's spawns were not designed for 20 v 20.

Can we make the game play itself?

I'm aware it's possible to broadcast bans with any anti-cheat, it's whether you'd want to. I guess it's a case that does some sense of 'justice' or sense of being proven right when a major player is banned outweigh a truckload of toxicity that comes with broadcasting bans. Also rewarding players for reporting cheaters is not a good idea. People will get a mate to cheat and then report him for fabulous cash prizes, cos that's the sort of people who play APB.

The evidence anti-cheat is working is that you don't meet cheaters. I appreciate that you think half the game cheats, which imo is not correct, but roll with me on this for a minute. Film was banned over 200 times by FairFight according to FFBans.org. Now browsing through his bans, whilst there were a lot of presumably instant bans where the banned character was R9, there are also a lot where the character was R30 or R40. Sometimes he got into the 70s. That's a lot of gameplay in which he was cheating. Now, which is better? A system that tells you that Film was banned 200 times, or people like Film being banned the instant they cheat and not being able to play? I certainly didn't see the likes of him playing when EAC was running. FF was terrible mate. Especially when it had to operate by itself with no PunkBuster. I don't understand how someone who is as obsessed with cheaters as you couldn't tell how much better the game was with EAC vs. FF or BattlEye. Just because the former didn't tell you it was banning people.

Maybe I'm suffering from a reading comprehension deficit, but there seems to be some overlap in these questions. Answered as best I can. 1 - Did FairFight work? Technically yes in the sense it banned some people who cheated. But in practice it took too long to ban blatant hackers and wasn't tuned to APB properly. We also know from LO that there were false detections, (Matt said he was able to trigger a false detection himself) but probably not as many as those unbanned due to the false detections would like you to believe. G1 also broadcast manual bans through the FF system to further muddy the waters. a) My individual experience was that I'd meet a hacker every now and then. Blatant ones ie. speed/teleport hacking, very very unsubtle wall/radar hacks, would survive way too long for something that works the way FF was supposed to. This was at it's greatest for 12-18 months (maybe longer, I've been playing a long time) at the end of G1's reign when they had to turn off Punkbuster and had no client side anti-cheat of any description. Literally anyone could fire up a free cheat and ragehack until FF bothered its backside to ban them. b) It wasn't unplayable or anything, but there were cheaters there, and sometimes really obvious ones. c) None of my friends are confessed cheaters, or cheaters of any description I would think. I was with a couple of different groups during the FF period. One group hackusated like fuck all the time. Too much imo. The other rarely did. d) Wasn't tuned correctly. The only 'good thing' about it was the broadcasting of bans. And how cathartic that was tells you how shit the game was. Question for anybody who thinks FF was the best anti-cheat APB had: Is it actually FF you want, or just the ban broadcasts that came with it? Cos LO (rightly, imo) are not going back to that. I for one don't think going back to it taking days to ban blatant hackers is a desirable outcome. 2 - Did EasyAC work? Yes. a) Best experience I've had on APB in terms of hackers. Sure there were no broadcasts, but blatant hackers were at a minimum and there were far fewer 'suspicious' players, or sense of dying to total nonsense. EAC era was by far the best place the game was in terms of cheating and anyone who says otherwise is wrong, as far as I'm concerned. b) Game was as clean as it's been. c) As per my answer for FF, I don't know anyone who admitted to cheating. I was largely playing solo at the time. d) This is the most effective anti-cheat APB has had to date, even though it didn't have a full feature set implemented for the game. 3 - Did BattlEye work? Yes, although not brilliantly. a) The first period of BattlEye when LO came in first was better than the current one. To be absolutely fair, I don't see as many blatants as I did during FF, but there are some there. There's also a fair bit of 'borderline' play. Way more than we saw during EAC. b) See answer to a. c) As per my answer for FF, I don't know anyone who admitted to cheating. I was largely playing solo at the time. d) It's neither great nor terrible. Could easily be improved on. 4 - Which of the 3 is the worst? FF, although BattlEye isn't a million miles away. And which of the 3 is the best? EAC a) Are any of these the ideal anti-cheat for APB? Probably not, but EAC felt clean enough. Or is there any other anti-cheat on the market/in the world that would look better on APB? Don't know. b) In your opinion, at what time did the APB have fewer hackers? When we had EAC.

Being kicked by Battleye? How could that be? You must be cheating.

u ok mate?

Not sure about the suggested changes to the NTEC cos honestly I just stopped looking at weapon stats years ago, but the OP's 100% right on it being ridiculous bullshoot and people going on about how 'balanced' it is (saying this means you do not understand what 'balance' is) and demanding the entire gun meta be balanced around it are just people not wanting to lose their crutch gun.

Don't disagree there. But sometimes people are so blatantly wrong, ya just can't help it.

Sigh... the conversation thread starts with this comment from Hexerin: "What really needs to happen though, is that all guns have their damage cut to half (or even a quarter), and fire rates jacked up by double or triple across the board. Same amount of damage in a given time frame, but spread across significantly more bullets." Pretty unequivocal what's going to happen there, like.

Ok, shots to kill on an NTEC goes from 6 to 12 with doubled rate of fire. Or maybe 18 with tripled rate of fire. You sure about retaining the 32 shot magazine after that? And that's one of the best cases. Half the damage from the OCA-EW and you have less than 2 kills per standard 30 bullet mag. Or zero kills per mag if we take your suggestion of cutting damage in a quarter at face value (bumping the OCA to 32 stk). You didn't think this out, did you?

I welcome the return of EAC, cos it was really good, but I'm not really seeing all these cheaters.