People cheating already :(

popflop

Played for 15 hours now(Battlelog) and i haven't ran into any obvious cheaters so far if i did they just get banned straight away by PunkBuster.

copeyhagen

mozattack wrote: »

Agree big time...

Some shinery graphics and to be part of a pointless 32 man team versus another 32 (how can 1 player or even 1 squad make a difference in such numbers) and to have to deal with all the cheating and crap....

omgg.

call of duty rang, they need you back for the new modern warfare.

game4it70

I was playing last night on a server where a nasty barsteward of a hacker came on.

At the start of the round he killed 32 of us as soon as we spawned.Then after that i didn't spawn in but could see the traces of the bullets hitting everyone from the deploy screen.

What worse was half my team where stupid enough to keep spawning and giving him more kills even after people typing in chat saying dont spawn and he should leave.He had about 160-0 kd at the end of the round because of people respawning.

Pb was on but didn't pick his hacks up :mad::mad::mad:

Cherry_Cola

This is on Xbox but on every hardcore game I go to, there are people boosting with the EOD repair bots.

It's the most annoying thing. All I can do is keep killing them until they leave but it's beyond sad what some folks get up to.

mozattack

copeyhagen wrote: »

omgg.

call of duty rang, they need you back for the new modern warfare.

Once you go back to Train Simulator Master Part IV then?

The fact remains that being 1 of 12 leads you to have more involvement in actually winning the round and even at that you are at the mercy of 11 others. Being 1 of 32 on a team is pointless in that sense, your only making up the numbers.

copeyhagen

mozattack wrote: »

Once you go back to Train Simulator Master Part IV then?

The fact remains that being 1 of 12 leads you to have more involvement in actually winning the round and even at that you are at the mercy of 11 others. Being 1 of 32 on a team is pointless in that sense, your only making up the numbers.

stop, just stop. you cant realistically believe that this game could be better on console than on pc?!!!! (yes i have played it on ps3)

in the pc version you can pick what size game you want to play in, 18 man, 32, 64 etc. nobody HAS to play 64 man servers.

i have seen games where every squad on a 32 man team has worked together to annihilate the other team.

Dublin_Gunner

mozattack wrote: »

Don't see how that is possible to be honest... 1 person from a team of 32.

Its a team game. This isn't CoD.

And if you want an example of how 1 person can make a difference, lets pick the Medic.

Lets say your team wins by 10 tickets, and you, as a medic, got 15 revives during the round.

You saved your team 15 tickets, thereby swaying the result in your teams favour.

However, it would most likely be a group of medics that saved those tickets, let alone the support players ensuring people had ammo, and the engineers taking out enemy armour etc

Stop thinking its 'me against the world' - that's not how Battlefield is played.

Jumpy

Highest scores on a lot of the servers I play have zero kills. THey are just awesome medics.

SeantheMan

Jumpy wrote: »

Highest scores on a lot of the servers I play have zero kills. THey are just awesome medics.

Or they spot, or repair, or resupply the team or any number of helpful team orientated things

Jumpy

I love spotting tanks already under fire, guaranteed points

jeawan

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Say, "This server sucks and is run by raging homersexuals!!1!!11one!!"
If you get banned, the server has an admin on.

Was on a server the other night and playing with my four mates we where doing quite well and got server baned due to t he fact we where kicking a couple of the guys asses who ran the server . Not all admins are fair either , i don't see the point of cheating in games like this they are there for fun i play with friends and we do well while playing simple as we work as a team . guy cheating are annoying as hell , Admins baning people just because then are losing is sad too

jeawan

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Its a team game. This isn't CoD.

And if you want an example of how 1 person can make a difference, lets pick the Medic.

Lets say your team wins by 10 tickets, and you, as a medic, got 15 revives during the round.

You saved your team 15 tickets, thereby swaying the result in your teams favour.

However, it would most likely be a group of medics that saved those tickets, let alone the support players ensuring people had ammo, and the engineers taking out enemy armour etc

Stop thinking its 'me against the world' - that's not how Battlefield is played.

On that note i generally play support , while playing a 64 man server last ngiht i choose to play Assault along with every other person on my site bar the engineers i ran out of ammo along with most are side due to people always getting resed i re spawned and came back as support and then see 5 guys playing the same class

AnCapaillMor

jeawan wrote: »

Was on a server the other night and playing with my four mates we where doing quite well and got server baned due to t he fact we where kicking a couple of the guys asses who ran the server . Not all admins are fair either , i don't see the point of cheating in games like this they are there for fun i play with friends and we do well while playing simple as we work as a team . guy cheating are annoying as hell , Admins baning people just because then are losing is sad too

Yeah admins banning really boils my blood, happened to me so many times in 2142.

TheFairy

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Stop thinking its 'me against the world' - that's not how Battlefield is played.

Best quote ever describing how to play BF3! Hooah!

mozattack

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Its a team game. This isn't CoD.

And if you want an example of how 1 person can make a difference, lets pick the Medic.

Lets say your team wins by 10 tickets, and you, as a medic, got 15 revives during the round.

You saved your team 15 tickets, thereby swaying the result in your teams favour.

However, it would most likely be a group of medics that saved those tickets, let alone the support players ensuring people had ammo, and the engineers taking out enemy armour etc

Stop thinking its 'me against the world' - that's not how Battlefield is played.

"You saved your team 15 tickets, thereby swaying the result in your teams favour"... not if there is a medic on the other team doing the same thing.

Where did I say that the game doesn't involve teamwork by the way? I am just saying that the more play, the less impact 1 good player/squad can have. Isn't that obvious no?

Say football was 22 v 22 on a pitch 1.5 times the size, surely you agree then that the more gifted players would be less obvious. Same principle.

mozattack

copeyhagen wrote: »

stop, just stop. you cant realistically believe that this game could be better on console than on pc?!!!! (yes i have played it on ps3)

in the pc version you can pick what size game you want to play in, 18 man, 32, 64 etc. nobody HAS to play 64 man servers.

i have seen games where every squad on a 32 man team has worked together to annihilate the other team.

Excuse me but how can you say you say every player on a 32 man team work together... did you call round to their houses and watch them on their PC? Other than that you are just assuming that they worked together because that team happens to have won. Anyway, isn't that my point.. what effect did you have on that game cos surely ye would have won with the other 31 players in any case...

#pointless

Is it better on PC? I dunno, never played it and won't because (a) cheaters, (b) I don't want a hunch in my back from having to play 3 foot from a monitor a third the size of my TV, (c) less people play PC (500,000 versus 1,500,000 on PS3) (d) i don't see the point in 32 v 32.

MajesticDonkey

(a) That's what PunkBuster is for, and from my experience it's been working quite well.
(b) You mean you have a 69" TV?
(c) Generally, in my opinion, people who play on PC are better at playing that people on other consoles - simply because it takes a good amount of money to get a rig capable of playing the game on high/ultra settings (which most PC games want). Therefore I think you generally have less campers on PC.
(d) Then play 16 v 16 or 8 v 8 - there's plenty to go around.

mozattack

Decryptor wrote: »

(a) That's what PunkBuster is for, and from my experience it's been working quite well.
(b) You mean you have a 69" TV?
(c) Generally, in my opinion, people who play on PC are better at playing that people on other consoles - simply because it takes a good amount of money to get a rig capable of playing the game on high/ultra settings (which most PC games want). Therefore I think you generally have less campers on PC.
(d) Then play 16 v 16 or 8 v 8 - there's plenty to go around.

(a) so why is there complaints on the topic if it is not an issue

(b) no 51 inch, a tad bigger than the monitor you have which would have been considered small as a TV in 1985!

(c) No comment on such nonsense...well I do actually, (1) more money on a PC does not make you a better player as you could want the PC for other games whereas a PS3 player might only play BF... me (2) unless there is some hybrid mix between PS3 and PC (maybe PC3?) we will never know... can't see how aiming is tougher on PC though when it is just a "point and click".

(d) Fair point, just the defence I was making was in saying that 32 v 32 is pointless only for the novelty.

Genghiz Cohen

mozattack wrote: »

(a) so why is there complaints on the topic if it is not an issue

(b) no 51 inch, a tad bigger than the monitor you have which would have been considered small as a TV in 1985!

(c) No comment on such nonsense...well I do actually, (1) more money on a PC does not make you a better player as you could want the PC for other games whereas a PS3 player might only play BF... me (2) unless there is some hybrid mix between PS3 and PC (maybe PC3?) we will never know... can't see how aiming is tougher on PC though when it is just a "point and click".

(d) Fair point, just the defence I was making was in saying that 32 v 32 is pointless only for the novelty.

copeyhagen

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/xbox-360-windows-live-gaming-voodoopc-rahul-sood,10924.html

Microsoft controls what goes on its Xbox 360 platform, so through its Games for Windows initiative, one would assume that Microsoft at one point must have contemplated getting its console gamers online with PC gamers. According to VoodooPC founder and HP CTO Rahul Sood, Microsoft tested it and then canned it.

Why? Because console gamers were no match for PC gamers.

"There was a project that got killed at Microsoft. This project was designed to allow console gamers and PC gamers to interact and battle over a connected environment," Sood wrote on his personal blog. "I've heard from reliable sources that during the development they brought together the best console gamers to play mediocre PC gamers at the same game... and guess what happened? They pitted console gamers with their 'console' controller, against PC gamers with their keyboard and mouse."

The results shouldn't be too surprising.

"The console players got destroyed every time," Sood added. "So much so that it would be embarrassing to the XBOX team in general had Microsoft launched this initiative

i havent seen a single person cheating either.

mozattack

I win

Genghiz Cohen

mozattack wrote: »

I win

How'd you come to that conclusion?

the_syco

mozattack wrote: »

Excuse me but how can you say you say every player on a 32 man team work together...

We're all on teamspeak together and talking to each other.

mozattack wrote: »

(a) cheaters

Cheat on PC: get kicked from server. Cheat on PS3: lalalala no cheaters on PS3, he must be just very good :rolleyes:

srsly78

TV resolution is **** mozattack, doesn't compare to pc. Consoles also have low fps and bad input lag, terrible experience if you are used to pc.

Dublin_Gunner

mozattack wrote: »

"You saved your team 15 tickets, thereby swaying the result in your teams favour"... not if there is a medic on the other team doing the same thing.

Where did I say that the game doesn't involve teamwork by the way? I am just saying that the more play, the less impact 1 good player/squad can have. Isn't that obvious no?

Say football was 22 v 22 on a pitch 1.5 times the size, surely you agree then that the more gifted players would be less obvious. Same principle.

lol

Of course it still makes a difference, because if you didn't do it, your team would have lost. It doesn't matter what the other team was doing lol

I see you grasp the concept very well ha!

And if the more gifted players kept the ball and worked together, they'd be far from anonymous.

jeawan

Just had a email from a friend saying he got his ass handed to him in a conquest game and the top guy on the other side http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf3/soldier/cp_ZaVaJLiEbAJLo/stats/351945846/pc/ had 149 kills to 0 deaths

MajesticDonkey

jeawan wrote: »

Just had a email from a friend saying he got his ass handed to him in a conquest game and the top guy on the other side http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf3/soldier/cp_ZaVaJLiEbAJLo/stats/351945846/pc/ had 149 kills to 0 deaths

That guy is scoring nearly 3000 points a minute on average...that's impossible, considering he's only played it for 28 hours.

jeawan

Decryptor wrote: »

That guy is scoring nearly 3000 points a minute on average...that's impossible, considering he's only played it for 28 hours.

aye so therefore he cheating

Burgo

Decryptor wrote: »

That guy is scoring nearly 3000 points a minute on average...that's impossible, considering he's only played it for 28 hours.

Could just be a beast in a jet/chopper!

jeawan

Burgo wrote: »

Could just be a beast in a jet/chopper!

It was infantry map and the other team ended up getting camped in the spawn area , every with random spawns areas he was killing everyone with one shot kills according to my mate using a M249