I know it's probably not perfect, but it does catch a lot of people. More importantly when it does catch people it let's everyone know, so we actually "see" something being done about cheaters.
I know it's probably not perfect, but it does catch a lot of people. More importantly when it does catch people it let's everyone know, so we actually "see" something being done about cheaters.
R6:Siege uses both fair fight and Battle eye for anti-cheat. I wondered the same thing.
Cause cheaters have feelings and we don't want to hurt their feelings?
well in those games server does not trust the client. Division is free-for-all - server trusts client (you can do all crazy ****/hacks and game thinks it legit).
Those games are much more self contained arena type games - the scale and complexity of the division coupled with the network architecture used doesn't tend to work well for anti-cheat.
At the end of the day the cheat authors are usually 1-2 steps ahead of the anti-cheat software anyhow :( the best remedy is well admined servers frequented by a regular group of people who actually have a love for playing the game but again unfortunately not something that fits this game very well.
Yep, poor overall game design and architecture. How on earth no one saw all of these issues coming amazes me. But when you see a mistake as colossal as this at the root core of the game it doesn't take much to see how every other moronic decision made it into each successive patch.
I get the feeling that the original vision for the game was completely different gameplay wise - probably more QTEs (yuck) and roll the dice old school MMORPG style combat where you merely selected the enemy you wanted to shoot at and everything else was just roll the dice and actual aim or movement, etc. didn't matter.
Otherwise I just can't understand the choices made - for instance not to use TCP in this kind of context is drummed in early on however you learnt network programming.
PVP wise though the smaller stuff needs to embrace the community more in some way or other while facilities active community moderation and so that cheaters stand out and stuff like the DZ really needs to move towards a bigger focus where "clans" can work towards objectives and things like camping bottlenecks, etc. become more an incidental part of the action - reducing the impact of individual cheaters and where they do go all out head snapping, instant killing BS they stand out like a sore thumb with a lot of people knowing about it helping to get rid of them.
Because Massive are too pigheaded to admit that they wrote one of the easiest game architectures to cheat with and do something about it. Or they just don't want to spend the money on a cheat prevention program.
Ironically, if their claims about finding and banning cheats is true, they are probably spending more money on retroactively banning than a proper cheat program would cost.
Something I always liked about Fairfight is that it displayed bans in chat. Not just in that instance but across the entire game.
If you were banned,any player that owns the game and is looking at chat knew. And they knew why.
IF large open world games like DAY Z/Day Z arma 2 mod can have it why not the Division.
It always told us who was insta banned from the server and what for (ie using non game scripts/illegal scripts or modded weapons or weapons that shouldn't be in the game etc etc etc)