912 replies to this topic

[RussianWolf]

ShinobiHunter, on 27 May 2015 - 03:13 PM, said:

They need target practice, right?

its about all I'm good for with those guys.... well, I might blister the paint on a mech or two before I'm cored, but that's about it.

[Rebas Kradd]

Now here's the bad news..

The fact that they've banned only 64 doesn't mean those are the only cheaters. It means those are the only reported players whom they can feel 100% certain about...in other words, the players who aren't talented enough to effectively hide their use of cheats or hacks in-game.

The legitimately strong players who just use cheats to give them that little extra edge at crucial moments in paid tournaments? They're still sitting in PGI's "hot list". It's just that PGI can't cite "100% certainty" with them yet.

It's like the Seahawks getting singled out for Adderall use or the Saints for player bounties. You'd be naive to think that they were the only teams doing that. They were just the only teams with players clumsy enough to get caught.

(But yes, thank you PGI for taking the time to nail the folks you did. Please keep it up.)

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 27 May 2015 - 03:21 PM.

[Piney II]

To all the cheating losers banned today:

Don't go away mad....just go away.

Well done, PGI!

[Prc]

gg

[Mycrus]

Ingvay, on 27 May 2015 - 03:07 PM, said:

I recognize about 7 names on the list... sadly...one of them is our unit XO.... a second is a member who plays in a different time zone. I/We have yet to hear from the XO to see what their response (If any) will be. But cheating is cheating, especially in a dam video game, and perma-bans are appropriate if they've been caught.

Is cheating against your unit charter?

[Bilbo]

Prc, on 27 May 2015 - 03:20 PM, said:

gg

I can't stop watching it. It's hypnotic.

[PoorDecisions]

So, I'm disheartened to see my unit's name sullied on this list. However, that unit member maintains their innocence (of course). Russ apparently is claiming that he's seen video footage that proves that the member is guilty. Are these proof videos going to be provided for the general public to observe or are we going to have to take Russ's word for it?

[Nightmare1]

I Make Poor Decisions, on 27 May 2015 - 03:23 PM, said:

So, I'm disheartened to see my unit's name sullied on this list. However, that unit member maintains their innocence (of course). Russ apparently is claiming that he's seen video footage that proves that the member is guilty. Are these proof videos going to be provided for the general public to observe or are we going to have to take Russ's word for it?

They don't rely on video alone; they can find the coding intrusions as well.

If PGI says your buddy's dirty, then it's probably because he is.

[stratagos]

I Make Poor Decisions, on 27 May 2015 - 03:23 PM, said:

So, I'm disheartened to see my unit's name sullied on this list. However, that unit member maintains their innocence (of course). Russ apparently is claiming that he's seen video footage that proves that the member is guilty. Are these proof videos going to be provided for the general public to observe or are we going to have to take Russ's word for it?

The latter. PGI has zero motivation to discuss their methodology; it increases the chance of someone devising a work around.

Your member proclaims innocence. While stipulating that it is possible they might be, would you not expect them to claim that even if they were not?

[PoorDecisions]

Nightmare1, on 27 May 2015 - 03:26 PM, said:

They don't rely on video alone; they can find the coding intrusions as well.

If PGI says your buddy's dirty, then it's probably because he is.

I really just don't want to believe this and I'm willing to fight for my mates to the bitter end, but I'd rather not take someone's word on it either way.

If they can detect code intrusion, why would they need to watch video footage?

[ShinobiHunter]

RussianWolf, on 27 May 2015 - 03:17 PM, said:

its about all I'm good for with those guys.... well, I might blister the paint on a mech or two before I'm cored, but that's about it.

I haven't played 228, by I have played against Nights Scorn. I know those two are on the same level and I was thoroughly rekt by NS. I don't imagine I would fare much better against 228.

[Nightmare1]

I Make Poor Decisions, on 27 May 2015 - 03:27 PM, said:

I really just don't want to believe this and I'm willing to fight for my mates to the bitter end, but I'd rather not take someone's word on it either way.

If they can detect code intrusion, why would they need to watch video footage?

Video footage helps them sort out who needs special attention. My thought is that it's less work. Look at the vid to see if there might be signs of cheating. If it looks fishy, then go check the code logs for that match. Like a filter, you know? PGI probably gets a lot of cheating complaints.

[Piney II]

I Make Poor Decisions, on 27 May 2015 - 03:27 PM, said:

I really just don't want to believe this and I'm willing to fight for my mates to the bitter end, but I'd rather not take someone's word on it either way.

If they can detect code intrusion, why would they need to watch video footage?

It's always good to have irrefutable evidence.

[PoorDecisions]

stratagos, on 27 May 2015 - 03:26 PM, said:

Your member proclaims innocence. While stipulating that it is possible they might be, would you not expect them to claim that even if they were not?

Why do you think I included the "(of course)" in my post?

We know from average damage and what not that he's not aimbotting and if macros and sweetfx aren't bannable then it's probably something like wallhacks that he's being accused of.

If that's the case, is PGI taking into account that he may have been running with someone on Teamspeak who was conveying positional information that the member acted on that might LOOK like he could see enemy movements that weren't readily apparent on his screen?

I'm not taking sides here, but considering the decisions that Russ FUBAR's like the CW changes lately, I'd like to actually watch my unit mate and friend cheating instead of taking some derpy word for it.

[Ovion]

I Make Poor Decisions, on 27 May 2015 - 03:27 PM, said:

I really just don't want to believe this and I'm willing to fight for my mates to the bitter end, but I'd rather not take someone's word on it either way.

If they can detect code intrusion, why would they need to watch video footage?

Because it can corroborate other data.

The more info you have, the more solid the case, the more sure you can be.

And really, are they going to go 'hey, fair cop'. Few will.

Has your friend regularly streamed anything?
Did they ever suddenly improve for some reason?

Whatever it was, obviously showed suspicious activity, AND tripped the system in a few places, AND probably showed different files on their installation on a probe.

[Haike]

I recognize 2 names. 007mither007 and iLegionlord.

Mither because he has less than 10ping AND he accused me of aim boring.(HAHAHAHA)

iLegionlord because he was in my unit, was booted for drama and likes to brag how good he is, he could regularly top scoreboards in our drop. I guess we now know why he was "good". After he was booted, he joined JGx whom accepted him because of his skill I guess? This whole debacle is quite amusing.

The rest I do not really know any of them. Their names don't stand out at all

[PoorDecisions]

Nightmare1, on 27 May 2015 - 03:30 PM, said:

Video footage helps them sort out who needs special attention. My thought is that it's less work. Look at the vid to see if there might be signs of cheating. If it looks fishy, then go check the code logs for that match. Like a filter, you know? PGI probably gets a lot of cheating complaints.

This doesn't make sense.

There needs to be an active process that's checking for code injection. You don't just go back and "look at the logs."

Why would you need video evidence to begin code checking? There are thousands of games per day. You can't spectate anywhere close to a reasonable number of players to determine who needs to be "code checked" if things worked the way you hypothesize. That's just not how things work.

[Heffay]

I Make Poor Decisions, on 27 May 2015 - 03:33 PM, said:

This doesn't make sense.

There needs to be an active process that's checking for code injection. You don't just go back and "look at the logs."

Why would you need video evidence to begin code checking? There are thousands of games per day. You can't spectate anywhere close to a reasonable number of players to determine who needs to be "code checked" if things worked the way you hypothesize. That's just not how things work.

I know it's difficult to accept, but consider the odds that PGI is just guessing, or your unit mate is lying to you.

[MischiefSC]

So, again, you never want to go too much into detail on how you identify cheaters. I did this process on a few big games and can say it's 100% certain by the time you drop the hammer. There are tells you pick up from network and code and some intentional checks you can do. In addition to that there are some details you can log and then check on an account by account basis. THEN you normally want 'video evidence' because, well, honestly? Having it makes your accountability people happy (be that legal or HR or whoever) but it's not needed.

You can be as certain as 1+1 = 2. That's like saying that when you double-click on MW:O icon and it launches the MW:O launcher and MW:O fires up and such that you may or may not have launched MW:O. To say that's not 100% certain is quibbling.

Your friend is lying. I'm sorry, that sucks and it's upsetting. They'll likely never ever cop to the truth. Out of thousands of bans I've handed out in various games I've had a handful of people fess up honestly about it. If they were the sort of people who'd be honest, they probably wouldn't have cheated.

They're a cheater though. They'll try to rely on PGI not being willing to give exact details to prevent other cheaters from trying to circumvent detection to play the 'gray area' card. This wasn't because they used some graphics enhancement and got swept up in error. They cheated, sincerely and legitimately cheated, and got caught and banned.

[Vandul]

One of you data savvy types should data mine the factions for the banned.