Before Anti-Cheat RIP Hackers

[JackBauer 10]

2 minutes ago, PTCntte said:

Well, we've all been waiting for a change for almost 7 years. so keep waiting until the day will come.

well me 2 hah. if you read the topics description ive been waiting that long also. im just going based off waiting for change since the lasttime i played  

[LaQuandra 91]

On 6/2/2018 at 9:51 AM, BXNNXD said:

you say that but just give it two weeks or so and we’ll get the whining about how so-and-so isn’t banned yet and how battleye must not be configured right and how orbit is corrupt already and blah blah blah

 

Pretty much this. We went from Punkbuster is terrible we need a new anti cheat! FairFight is amazing it's getting all the hackers! Why is FairFight taking so long to ban suspected hacker x, y, z? We need BattEye! Wait...why is suspected hacker x, y, z still not banned? There must be something wrong with BattEye!

 

Ain't nobody going to apologize they were wrong and that is why name and shame is gone and should be gone. All the hackusators who were vindicated by false bans have yet to apologize and admit they were wrong. Instead all I hear is, wait for BattlEye to do the judging. We'll see....

[SelttikS 224]

2 hours ago, LaQuandra said:

 

Pretty much this. We went from Punkbuster is terrible we need a new anti cheat! FairFight is amazing it's getting all the hackers! Why is FairFight taking so long to ban suspected hacker x, y, z? We need BattEye! Wait...why is suspected hacker x, y, z still not banned? There must be something wrong with BattEye!

 

Ain't nobody going to apologize they were wrong and that is why name and shame is gone and should be gone. All the hackusators who were vindicated by false bans have yet to apologize and admit they were wrong. Instead all I hear is, wait for BattlEye to do the judging. We'll see....

Name and shame is alive and well in District chat! Just ask Mike!

 

Punkbuster was always crap, closer to Malware than anything. Heck I bet half of you have it running still and don't know it. Fairfight CAN be good, just not when its out of date by YEARS and been reconfigured all to hell. Battleye is pretty good though, not perfect but still better! Would rather have "pretty good" over what we have had for the past decade.

[Goldtiger 133]

9 hours ago, LaQuandra said:

 

All the hackusators who were vindicated by false bans have yet to apologize and admit they were wrong. Instead all I hear is, wait for BattlEye to do the judging. We'll see....

If I could like this 100 times over, I would.

[CookiePuss 5378]

9 hours ago, LaQuandra said:

 All the hackusators who were vindicated by false bans have yet to apologize and admit they were wrong.

 

Just now, Goldtiger said:

If I could like this 100 times over, I would.

But Matt never said anything about exactly what was wrong with how G1 handled bans, or even the number or percentage of bans that were false.

Not to mention unbanning 17,000 accounts can only help LO increase the player base, and bring in money.

Follow the money, as it were.

 

That being said, Im sure we will still hear the same "false ban" stories when BE is here. They exist in all other BE games.

[LaQuandra 91]

14 minutes ago, CookiePuss said:

 

But Matt never said anything about exactly what was wrong with how G1 handled bans, or even the number or percentage of bans that were false.

Not to mention unbanning 17,000 accounts can only help LO increase the player base, and bring in money.

Follow the money, as it were.

 

That being said, Im sure we will still hear the same "false ban" stories when BE is here. They exist in all other BE games.

 

 

Considering he used the phrase "a lot" I'd say it was a good percentage that were sketchy. 

 

Why do you consider it to be the "same false ban stories?" Plenty of people said they were false banned. Plenty of people cheered on Tiggs and G1 with their name and shame policy. The same people continued to cry that FairFight wasn't banning fast enough and there were still too many cheaters. Matt Scott comes in and says FairFight would falsely flag people and bans were very subjective and up to the CM. Which narrative you gonna believe-

 

Tiggs- "Yes, you were cheating and you got caught"

 

or

 

Matt Scott- "Our current system is inaccurate and capable of automatically banning players who are not cheating. I also found a lot of instances where bans were enforced subjectively. That means the punishment or lack thereof was largely at the discretion of the GM or CS person. In order to grow, we need consistency. With that in mind, I am going unban a significant portion of the player base."

[LaQuandra 91]

24 minutes ago, Goldtiger said:

If I could like this 100 times over, I would.

 

I'll like you 100 times over instead.  

[CookiePuss 5378]

51 minutes ago, LaQuandra said:

 

Considering he used the phrase "a lot" I'd say it was a good percentage that were sketchy. 

 

 

Well thats kind of the thing. We dont know what a "lot" means. 1% (170+ false bans)? 10% (1,700+ false bans)? 50% (8,500+ false bans?)

LO lacks even the support crew to handle 2,000 support tickets. Even after they started using a copy paste reply, they still have only gotten through hundreds since the acquisition. Matt himself said they were not prepared. There is absolutely no way they could go through 17,000+ bans individually to know who was or wasnt banned falsely. So I would guess that even Matt does not know the exact number of false bans.

51 minutes ago, LaQuandra said:

 

 

 

Why do you consider it to be the "same false ban stories?"

I just mean look at any game that runs BE. People still claim false ban almost all the time. Just like APB does now. I do not expect that to change once BE arrives.

 

51 minutes ago, LaQuandra said:

 

 

Matt Scott- "Our current system is inaccurate and capable of automatically banning players who are not cheating. I also found a lot of instances where bans were enforced subjectively. That means the punishment or lack thereof was largely at the discretion of the GM or CS person. In order to grow, we need consistency. With that in mind, I am going unban a significant portion of the player base."

This was a good statement. I was both shocked and alarmed to hear it, as I think a lot of people were. But there is something you need to keep in mind...

 

LO is a business, and no business can run at a loss forever. We can assume LO spent what was no small amount to acquire GamersFirst and all of it assets. They are running multiple development teams on multiple projects. They also appear to not have the money to hire GM's or forum moderation staff as they are going the volunteer route. But regardless, LO will only have so much runway left before they either start making money, or they are in some real trouble. APB allegedly hasnt made a profit in over 2 years, and our player count is abysmal. LO will need to boost player count and of course player spending dramatically, and quickly. Can you think of a better and or cheaper way to do that than by unbanning 17,000+ player accounts?

 

Im not saying Mr. Scott was in any way misleading in his statements. In fact everything he said is undoubtedly true. But this is not his first rodeo. You can be sure he chose each of his words very carefully. And I think some of us players are reading more into those words than he originally intended out of our desperation to feel some hope for APB.

 

I play APB daily, anywhere from 4 to 12 hours. I've spent thousands and thousands of dollars on this game. Ive given away tens of millions of dollars in game to try to convince new players stay long enough to get the hang of our game. I want, just like all of you, for APB to succeed.

 

I also care about the players. I know how much APB means to some of us, and I know how devastating it will be if LO doesnt pull through, if APB finally dies. Im simply trying to keep everyone's feet on the ground for now. To keep us focused. To make sure we all hold LO accountable for what theyve promised, for what theyve done, and for what they will do.

 

I apologize if Im upsetting anyone, Im not trying to.

Edited June 5, 2018 by CookiePuss

[vsb 6171]

9 minutes ago, CookiePuss said:

Well thats kind of the thing. We dont know what a "lot" means. 1% (170+ false bans)? 10% (1,700+ false bans)? 50% (8,500+ false bans?)

LO lacks even the support crew to handle 2,000 support tickets. Even after they started using a copy paste reply, they still have only gotten through hundreds since the acquisition. Matt himself said they were not prepared. There is absolutely no way they could go through 17,000+ bans individually to know who was or wasnt banned falsely. So I would guess that even Matt does not know the exact number of false bans.

I just mean look at any game that runs BE. People still claim false ban almost all the time. Just like APB does now. I do not expect that to change once BE arrives.

 

This was a good statement. I was both shocked and alarmed to hear it, as I think a lot of people were. But there is something you need to keep in mind...

 

LO is a business, and no business can run at a loss forever. We can assume LO spent what was no small amount to acquire GamersFirst and all of it assets. They are running multiple development teams on multiple projects. They also appear to not have the money to hire GM's or forum moderation staff as they are going the volunteer route. But regardless, LO will only have so much runway left before they either start making money, or they are in some real trouble. APB allegedly hasnt made a profit in over 2 years, and our player count is abysmal. LO will need to boost player count and of course player spending dramatically, and quickly. Can you think of a better and or cheaper way to do that than by unbanning 17,000+ player accounts?

 

Im not saying Mr. Scott was in any way misleading in his statements. In fact everything he said is undoubtedly true. But this is not his first rodeo. You can be sure he chose each of his words very carefully. And I think some of us players are reading more into those words than he originally intended out of our desperation to feel some hope for APB.

 

I play APB daily, anywhere from 4 to 12 hours. I've spent thousands and thousands of dollars on this game. Ive given away tens of millions of dollars in game to try to convince new players stay long enough to get the hang of our game. I want, just like all of you, for APB to succeed.

 

I also care about the players. I know how much APB means to some of us, and I know how devastating it will be if LO doesnt pull through, if APB finally dies. Im simply trying to keep everyone's feet on the ground for now. To keep us focused. To make sure we all hold LO accountable for what theyve promised, for what theyve done, and for what they will do.

 

I apologize if Im upsetting anyone, Im not trying to.

tl;dr

 

slim these posts down man i started drooling half way thru

[gogol 53]

yikes

[CookiePuss 5378]

4 minutes ago, BXNNXD said:

tl;dr

 

slim these posts down man i started drooling half way thru

IKR ? Im having flashback of grad school.

 

here have a gif to calm the nerves...

 

[LaQuandra 91]

43 minutes ago, CookiePuss said:

tl;dr LO is unbaning to increase population 

 

Do I need to define what "a lot" means? If I had $100 and gave you $1 I didn't give you "a lot" of money. The term isn't being used subjectively. I think you're smart enough to figure out that "a lot" doesn't mean 1% or 10%. 

 

I wasn't shocked to hear Matt Scott's statement. Been waiting years to hear that statement. Welcome to reality. 

[CookiePuss 5378]

45 minutes ago, LaQuandra said:

 

Do I need to define what "a lot" means? If I had $100 and gave you $1 I didn't give you "a lot" of money. The term isn't being used subjectively. I think you're smart enough to figure out that "a lot" doesn't mean 1% or 10%. 

 

I wasn't shocked to hear Matt Scott's statement. Been waiting years to hear that statement. Welcome to reality. 

Oh... you missed the point entirely.

 

"a lot" is subjective

 

What is a lot of money to a rural farmer in china vs what is a lot of money to Donald Trump? (small loan of a million dollars anyone?)

 

What does Matt think "a lot" is? Is it the same as what you think? And how do you know?

 

And as I pointed out, it is unlikely that Mr Scott himself even knows an exact number. Honestly it just sounds like he is saying "Its not the way I would have handled things" which makes sense since he isnt even giving GMs the power to ban. 

 

And if you think LO bought this game and is making decisions for reasons other than to make a profit, perhaps you should get a bit better acquainted with "reality". 

 

 

But regardless, I assume you will be getting an account back whem BE arrives. Good luck to you. 

 

 

Edited June 5, 2018 by CookiePuss

[TheAceNinja 38]

26 minutes ago, LaQuandra said:

 

Do I need to define what "a lot" means? If I had $100 and gave you $1 I didn't give you "a lot" of money. The term isn't being used subjectively. I think you're smart enough to figure out that "a lot" doesn't mean 1% or 10%. 

 

I wasn't shocked to hear Matt Scott's statement. Been waiting years to hear that statement. Welcome to reality. 

 

Just because you've been waiting years doesn't mean it has any truth behind it. Just like people think G1 was lying about the False Bans, who's to say LO isn't? Unbanning all the cheaters is a move to get population back into the game. They bought a DYING game and I'm sure it's not hard to look back at the records of certain banned accounts and see that they used to be swimming in G1C. It could also just be a blanket excuse since it'd be much easier to just unban everyone and give a very touchy subject as the reason.

 

I believe there were false bans, but I in no way believe it was "A lot" in the sense that it was a giant margin. Constant re-rolls, account sharing, account selling/buying, and so on all fell under FF. It wasn't JUST for cheats. Then you had people who were openly and extremely racist, bigoted, and just downright disgusting in terms of trolling. You had people who'd purposely grief and harrass streamers (Which some deserved to be banned, not all of them) and then you had people who'd literally call GM's names and disrespect them, which winds up in a ban.

 

LO also stated that a lot of the bans didn't really have any notes or reasons attached to them. That doesn't mean the ban wasn't justified. That can't be answered unless we had a time machine, but I'm willing to bet they're lumping in a lot of the "False" bans in with those.

 

As for what constitutes as "False" is completely subjective as well until we hear it from LO. As we've seen, LO is giving off the impression that they want to taper bans with mutes and temp time-outs before straight up banning someone's account. Just because LO thinks someone being toxic and mouthing off might warrant a few days mute, doesn't mean G1 didn't think they deserved an outright ban. You can argue that aspect till the world ends, but at the end of the day it was G1's game and they were free to do with the player base as they see fit in terms of that. 

[LaQuandra 91]

14 minutes ago, CookiePuss said:

snip

 

 

 

Give me an example that you would use "a lot" to represent 1% or 10%. I am well aware LO purchased the game to make a profit. I've been here since the beginning but correct me if I am wrong but, "I am quitting this game because of all the cheaters." "Too many cheaters in APB."

 

Why in their right mind would be unban "cheaters" and expect to make a profit? LO not do their due diligence on this game?

 

 

11 minutes ago, TheAceNinja said:

 

snap

 

Tiggs made it clear that FairFight bans were for cheating and that "yes you were caught." If you're saying she was lying, well.....yeah. 

 

 

[TheAceNinja 38]

Just now, LaQuandra said:

Tiggs made it clear that FairFight bans were for cheating and that "yes you were caught." If you're saying she was lying, well.....yeah. 

 

Yeah? I'm not saying she wasn't lying. I'm saying that most of the "False" bans were more then likely completely justified.

[CookiePuss 5378]

11 minutes ago, LaQuandra said:

 

Give me an example that you would use "a lot" to represent 1% or 10%.

 

OK...

 

Both 1% and 10% of $1,000,000 is a lot of money.

 

Or if Im extremely poor...

 

Both 1% and 10% of $17,000 is a lot of money.

 

See how that works now?

 

And as for due diligence, there is a reason LO is NOT unbanning everyone before BE is online. And its CERTAINLY not because they think everyone was falsely banned. lmfao

In fact, it sort of proves these players cannot be trusted since LO did not reverse all the bans immediately.

Add to that the fact that APB was NEVER popular, and has more or less terrible reviews everywhere you look , you start to see why they might do something as irregular as unban thousands and thousands of known rule breakers in order to try to boost numbers. Also if you think cheaters dont spend money, dig up that old Dev Blog from the old forums that gave stats on that when fairfight was released, then multiply those numbers by 17,000. Math doesnt lie.

Its really quite simple if you stop and think about it without emotion.

Edited June 5, 2018 by CookiePuss

[LaQuandra 91]

Just now, CookiePuss said:

snip

False equivalency.

 

He can see the bans. He can see the reasons. He can do the math. The number is conclusive. He has a number of bans of the 17000 (minus the rerolls blah blah blah) he feels were questionable. He isn't comparing his bans to PUBGor some rich guy or Donald Trump. He saw a percentage and the only subjectivity in it is if he thinks 1% is "a lot" or whatever else. If it was 1% or 10% why would you unban everyone? 

 

Shady stuff. 

 

Glad it was exposed.

[CookiePuss 5378]

2 minutes ago, LaQuandra said:

 

 

He can see the bans. He can see the reasons. He can do the math. The number is conclusive. He has a number of bans of the 17000 (minus the rerolls blah blah blah) he feels were questionable.

Are you saying LO has already gone through each and every of the 17,000+ bans + silent bans + non FF related bans and decided "conclusively" how many were questionable?

Because Matt Scott certainly not said that.

 

Regardless, you do not know what Matt meant when he said a lot. For all we know, even one false ban could be too many for him. You simply do not know.

 

And yes, both 1% and 10% of $17,000 (or 1% or 10% of 17,000 bans) can be a lot. There is a reason that when scientists and mathmeticians work, hey never use the term "a lot" when discussing values.

 

Take Lego as an example... they can make some 3,000,000 or more pieces without any mistakes. so lets say that is 1 : 3,000,000 ratio. If that number suddenly jumped up to 1% or 30,000 : 3,000,000 they could definitely say there are suddenly a "lot" of mistakes being made.

 

Are you getting it yet?

 

[LaQuandra 91]

4 minutes ago, CookiePuss said:

Are you saying LO has already gone through each and every of the 17,000+ bans + silent bans + non FF related bans and decided "conclusively" how many were questionable?

Because Matt Scott certainly not said that.

 

Regardless, you do not know what Matt meant when he said a lot. For all we know, even one false ban could be too many for him. You simply do not know.

 

 

He said he spent the last couple of weeks researching it.......

 

He talked to multiple sources..............

 

He vetted the logs.............

 

He even tested it..........

 

He said the results were conclusive............

 

He said the cheat system is inaccurate and capable of automatically banning players..........

 

He found A LOT of instances where bans were subjective.............

 

He comments how the whole system was inconsistent.........

 

So he is unbanning a significant portion because of 1%.

 

You make zero sense. Go ahead and spin how Matt Scott hasn't said so. 

 

 

[Pedroxin 107]

On 6/2/2018 at 1:25 PM, Thelnformer said:

Just afk against  cheaters n Closets...Thats what i do !

well kinda boring to afk every mission don't u think?

[vsb 6171]

1 minute ago, LaQuandra said:

 

He said he spent the last couple of weeks researching it.......

 

He talked to multiple sources..............

 

He vetted the logs.............

 

He even tested it..........

 

He said the results were conclusive............

 

He said the cheat system is inaccurate and capable of automatically banning players..........

 

He found A LOT of instances where bans were subjective.............

 

He comments how the whole system was inconsistent.........

 

So he is unbanning a significant portion because of 1%.

 

You make zero sense. Go ahead and spin how Matt Scott hasn't said so. 

 

 

i mean in this case "a lot" really could be just about anything, when the number of questionable bans is supposed to be something approaching zero

[TheAceNinja 38]

11 minutes ago, LaQuandra said:

 

As I said in my post, that doesn't mean "A lot" of false bans were indeed FALSE. He just believes they should have been handled differently. AKA, what I posted the first time about players who were doing things other then just cheating. Or until we see what LO does, maybe cheating won't straight up be a perm ban. Maybe it'll be a temp/first offense kind of thing and that's how they'd have handled it.

 

You quoting Matt doesn't help your claim at all.

[CookiePuss 5378]

23 minutes ago, LaQuandra said:

 

He said he spent the last couple of weeks researching it.......

 

He talked to multiple sources..............

 

He vetted the logs.............

 

He even tested it..........

 

He said the results were conclusive............

 

He said the cheat system is inaccurate and capable of automatically banning players..........

 

He found A LOT of instances where bans were subjective.............

 

He comments how the whole system was inconsistent.........

 

So he is unbanning a significant portion because of 1%.

 

You make zero sense. Go ahead and spin how Matt Scott hasn't said so. 

 

 

Am I reading this wrong? Because it seems to support what I have said. 

 

He never said he reviewed every case.

Please tell me if I am wrong about this. 

 

If he had, LO would be able to unban only the questionable bans while leaving the rightful bans in place.  No? 

 

And as for what percent Matt Scott would consider "a lot" of false bans... we simply do not know.  

Correct?

 

Please tell me where I missed his explaination of what "a lot" means in the context in which he used it .

 

Maybe its 1%, maybe its 10%, maybe its 99%, it is simply not stated. 

 

 

Edited June 5, 2018 by CookiePuss

[Harmoni 8]

Cheaters may disappear, but lags do not.