To matt regarding intigrating BattleEye

[Ebola-Chan 59]

Before you intigrate BattleEye flag of the cheaters like ubisoft did with rainbow six

on the day BattleEye kicks in ban them and flag thier HWID or something to keep an eye on them for the future

 

P.S take all the time you need to make it work properly

[Bornstellar 108]

I'm getting flashbacks to FairFight's inaugural day

[CookiePuss 5378]

Matt has stated that he views banning as a failure.

 

I think it comes down to what you would rather have, revenge or success. Because sometimes you cant have both.

[Ebola-Chan 59]

1 minute ago, CookiePuss said:

Matt has stated that he views banning as a failure.

 

I think it comes down to what you would rather have, revenge or success. Because sometimes you cant have both.

 

So if banning is a failure

then is he going to reward cheaters with free stuff ?

 

[CookiePuss 5378]

Just now, KawaiPotato said:

 

So if banning is a failure

then is he going to reward cheaters with free stuff ?

 

I get where you are coming from, I really do.

 

But if the price of APB's success is getting cheaters to stop cheating, rather than banning them and having them quit the game, I for one am willing to pay.

[AgentWatson 85]

Banning cheaters isn't going to improve the game all that much, not sure why people keep hyping up BattleEye. The actual biggest addition for preventing cheaters isn't even BattleEye itself, it's the addition of a new engine upgrade. You implement BattleEye and the hack websites only need to create a new bypass. You upgrade the engine however and the hack websites need to take down their cheat and re-code everything and on a low population game like APB, it's going to be hard for those websites to find the financial incentive to continue to support the cheat any longer. 

[weissraider 21]

3 minutes ago, KawaiPotato said:

 

So if banning is a failure

then is he going to reward cheaters with free stuff ?

 

I think its a failure to make it possible to cheat in the first place. 

[ScarecrowXIII 27]

2 minutes ago, AgentWatson said:

Banning cheaters isn't going to improve the game all that much, not sure why people keep hyping up BattleEye. The actual biggest addition for preventing cheaters isn't even BattleEye itself, it's the addition of a new engine upgrade. You implement BattleEye and the hack websites only need to create a new bypass. You upgrade the engine however and the hack websites need to take down their cheat and re-code everything and on a low population game like APB, it's going to be hard for those websites to find the financial incentive to continue to support the cheat any longer. 

I want them to implement BE so they can unban me, THAT's what I'm really waiting for. I can just simply not play against cheaters if I don't feel like it. Can go mess around in social or just race or something.

Edited June 6, 2018 by ScarecrowXIII

[Regenance 59]

I assume he will release them all, and whenever they come back to cheat again they'll instantly be banned with HWID blocked, hope Battleye will kick out these annoying kids outside the game breaking the whole experience.

[CookiePuss 5378]

Just now, PTCntte said:

I assume he will release them all, and whenever they come back to cheat again they'll instantly be banned with HWID blocked, hope Battleye will kick out these annoying kids outside the game breaking the whole experience.

Given Matts stance on banning, I would be shocked if IP / HWID blocks became a thing.

[LaQuandra 91]

1 minute ago, CookiePuss said:

Given Matts stance on banning, I would be shocked if IP / HWID blocks became a thing.

Since when did he say he is against banning? He simply stated that he was against name and shame because banning players shows a failure on their part. 

 

Lots of things seem to shock you. I wonder why.....

[Clandestine 390]

First we need to survive first few weeks without false positives then worry about proper cheaters.

[CookiePuss 5378]

8 minutes ago, LaQuandra said:

Since when did he say he is against banning? He simply stated that he was against name and shame because banning players shows a failure on their part. 

 

Lots of things seem to shock you. I wonder why.....

He stated that he sees banning as a failure.

There is also the fact that his solution to handle dethreating is not to necessarily punish dethreaters, but to make gaining and losing threat a much more gradual (slow) process. So Im thinking his attitude is more on the side of it also being partly his job to create an environment where people are less likely to engage in behaviour that gets them banned. Which is good I think.

 

Though yes, he has not commented specifically on whether or not cheaters will be allowed to reroll.

 

Edited June 6, 2018 by CookiePuss

[Ebola-Chan 59]

19 minutes ago, CookiePuss said:

I get where you are coming from, I really do.

 

But if the price of APB's success is getting cheaters to stop cheating, rather than banning them and having them quit the game, I for one am willing to pay.

 

cheater's mentality will never change

most of them cheat because they think every player thats better then them cheats

so they cheat

if we want to minimise the cheaters rate apb needs to have higher player base for more veraity of player skills and a better matchmake and like g1 promised once

maychmaking will be server wide and not district wide

[LaQuandra 91]

Just now, CookiePuss said:

He stated that he sees banning as a failure.

There is also the fact that his solution to handle dethreating is not to necessarily punish dethreaters, but to make gaining and losing rank a much more gradual (slow) process. So Im thinking his attitude is more on the side of it also being partly his job to create an environment where people are less likely to engage in behaviour that gets them banned. Which is good I think.

 

Though yes, he has not commented specifically on whether or not cheaters will be allowed to reroll.

 

Again. How does that mean he is against banning? You think he supports and encourages people to continue to cheat in his game because if he bans them it's a failure? You took what he said out of context. If someone is cheating in their game he sees that as a failure on his part and no longer wanted to use name and shame policies because of that. He doesn't want to celebrate the fact that people were cheating in his game and were banned for it unlike the previous company.

[ScarecrowXIII 27]

We should trick new players into playing the game, treat them well so they stay, kick them out of the next when they can stand on their own two legs and bam! We've got a higher population.

 

EDIT: Oh, rinse and repeat.

Edited June 6, 2018 by ScarecrowXIII

[CookiePuss 5378]

5 minutes ago, KawaiPotato said:

 

cheater's mentality will never change

 

You may or may not be right about that. I have not seen any studies on cheater recidivism rates.

That being said, if BE catches someone cheating and bans them, its not like rerolling will do them a lot of good anyways if they continue to cheat.

4 minutes ago, LaQuandra said:

Again. How does that mean he is against banning?

He isnt against banning, he views banning as a failure.

Meaning he feels that when a player is banned, he has also failed.

That has nothing to do with context.

 

Frankly I think its great to have a CEO thinking "Other than an anti-cheat, what can I do to persuade players not to cheat"

Edited June 6, 2018 by CookiePuss

[Dark Rider 400 0]

32 minutes ago, Bornstellar said:

I'm getting flashbacks to FairFight's inaugural day

"Back in 'nam......"

 

Seriously though, you couldn't even talk in district because it was getting flooded with ban announcements.

[LaQuandra 91]

1 minute ago, CookiePuss said:

 

He isnt against banning, he views banning as a failure.

Meaning he feels that when a player is banned, he has also has failed.

 

Yeah, failed for the fact people were able to cheat in the game so therefore he doesn't want to broadcast it.

 

You make no sense but that is par for the course so carry on like usual. 

[CookiePuss 5378]

3 minutes ago, LaQuandra said:

Yeah, failed for the fact people were able to cheat in the game so therefore he doesn't want to broadcast it.

 

You make no sense but that is par for the course so carry on like usual. 

 

[Goldtiger 133]

1 hour ago, KawaiPotato said:

on the day BattleEye kicks in ban them and flag thier HWID or something to keep an eye on them for the future

While I'm not entirely against this idea, I feel like keeping a close eye on previously banned people (especially considering the previous system was faulty) is very unnecessary. 

[BuggedOut 23]

Just remember:

 

To Matt & LO, cheaters are customers too.

[CookiePuss 5378]

1 hour ago, LaQuandra said:

Yeah, failed for the fact people were able to cheat in the game so therefore he doesn't want to broadcast it.

 

You make no sense but that is par for the course so carry on like usual. 

I hate to keep doing this to you, but its not the part where the player was able to cheat that he views as a failure, ibut rather the loss of the player. The actualy quote from the Q&A is : "I view banning as a failure; it’s not something to be proud of or to enjoy. We lost a player and it’s our fault when it happens."

Edited June 6, 2018 by CookiePuss

[Seedy 324]

1 hour ago, AgentWatson said:

Banning cheaters isn't going to improve the game all that much, not sure why people keep hyping up BattleEye. The actual biggest addition for preventing cheaters isn't even BattleEye itself, it's the addition of a new engine upgrade. You implement BattleEye and the hack websites only need to create a new bypass. You upgrade the engine however and the hack websites need to take down their cheat and re-code everything and on a low population game like APB, it's going to be hard for those websites to find the financial incentive to continue to support the cheat any longer. 

this is actually a good point if it is correct.

[SelttikS 224]

9 minutes ago, BuggedOut said:

Just remember:

 

To Matt & LO, cheaters are customers too.

 

Cheaters are customers that drive other customers away. The crazy guy at the restaurant screaming and assaulting customers is also a customer, but that doesn't mean he is one you want to keep. If he is allowed to stay, people will leave and not buy from you anymore. They will tell their friends and then the Company loses those people as potential customers as well. So you lose one asshat customer or you lose 37 decent customers.