2094 réponses à ce sujet

[Zambayoshi]

I'd be interested to know whether the cheating you guys see is limited to the PC platform or whether any console users have run into it as well.

[Soshigenkaku]

hchadw wrote...


you misunderstand me... im not arguing ... the cheats suck....... i hate them... .its why im not playing the Multiplayer section of it much....
Its missing the core basics of any multiplayer game and people are more concerned the the dude that has the rifle or gun you dont have... Seems peoples concerns are misplaced

Im sorry you dont seem to see the point im making ......... mabe one day you will.... when there arnt anymore multiplayer masseffect servers left


Oh and i didnt say you HAD to do multiplayer to do singleplayer... i said it was TIED to it .....

Tied to it doesn't mean it is needed and doesn't play any part with the tie in that makes it something people have to do.  It's been made abundantly clear you don't need multi to do anything/everything in singleplayer, as such the tied to is merely a "hey I can do this too if I want, but it has no real bearing if I don't."  like offering someone a cake with vanilla frosting or choclate frosting, the end result is you get cake, one just has a different flavor that you decided you wanted.  The tie in does not change the fact you can ignore it completely and finish the game totally with the same endings someone who played multi gets.

And no servers left?  Seems I could get by with that since I have a group of friends I play with often and since one of us hosts...we manage to have a server all the time if we want to play.

And core basics of multiplayer?  Yes, some of them and I agreed with all the aspects you mentioned, with some contention on the pvp and anticheat.  So obviously I'm seeing well enough but you're not getting my message either and only seeing the contention and not the agreement.

I however still will contend against PvP for a good while since the state of the game would make PvP atrocious and on par with a "see you, you're dead" playstyle, with vanguards and infiltrators likly having the best ability to win due to being able to just power through any current defenses.  (think about how quickly you take down gold enemies..now remember that those enemies even baseline generally have more shields/HP then even the fully leveled characters)

The cheating takes away from plenty either way, and needs addressed but the how might be more tied to the manner, since I beleive the demo cheating was somewhat linked to the coalesced.ini which I'm not sure but might also be tied with SP so could be difficult to detangle.

And if that is the case that certainly needs fixed before we even CONSIDER a pvp situation.

Modifié par Soshigenkaku, 14 mars 2012 - 01:25 .

[TexasToast712]

hchadw wrote...

how can you cheat in a game thats versus AI only.....what does it matter really... who gets hurt the bots?

The people who want a challenge rather than shoot a infinite amount of rockets at the enemy until they are all dead etc.

[hchadw]

Soshigenkaku wrote...

hchadw wrote...


you misunderstand me... im not arguing ... the cheats suck....... i hate them... .its why im not playing the Multiplayer section of it much....
Its missing the core basics of any multiplayer game and people are more concerned the the dude that has the rifle or gun you dont have... Seems peoples concerns are misplaced

Im sorry you dont seem to see the point im making ......... mabe one day you will.... when there arnt anymore multiplayer masseffect servers left


Oh and i didnt say you HAD to do multiplayer to do singleplayer... i said it was TIED to it .....

Tied to it doesn't mean it is needed and doesn't play any part with the tie in that makes it something people have to do.  It's been made abundantly clear you don't need multi to do anything/everything in singleplayer, as such the tied to is merely a "hey I can do this too if I want, but it has no real bearing if I don't."  like offering someone a cake with vanilla frosting or choclate frosting, the end result is you get cake, one just has a different flavor that you decided you wanted.  The tie in does not change the fact you can ignore it completely and finish the game totally with the same endings someone who played multi gets.

And no servers left?  Seems I could get by with that since I have a group of friends I play with often and since one of us hosts...we manage to have a server all the time if we want to play.

And core basics of multiplayer?  Yes, some of them and I agreed with all the aspects you mentioned, with some contention on the pvp and anticheat.  So obviously I'm seeing well enough but you're not getting my message either and only seeing the contention and not the agreement.

I however still will contend against PvP for a good while since the state of the game would make PvP atrocious and on par with a "see you, you're dead" playstyle, with vanguards and infiltrators likly having the best ability to win due to being able to just power through any current defenses.  (think about how quickly you take down gold enemies..now remember that those enemies even baseline generally have more shields/HP then even the fully leveled characters)

The cheating takes away from plenty either way, and needs addressed but the how might be more tied to the manner, since I beleive the demo cheating was somewhat linked to the coalesced.ini which I'm not sure but might also be tied with SP so could be difficult to detangle.

And if that is the case that certainly needs fixed before we even CONSIDER a pvp situation.

I have done 3 play throughs and you can only do the multiplayer with minimal side quests and vice versa... they can be done to an extent to where they effect each other but it will not restrict what content your exposed to (DOES THAT MAKE YOU HAPPIER SAID THAT WAY )!~!!!!!!

If i put anticheat at the Top of the list would it make you happy ?????/

K

ANTICHEAT FIRST AND FORMOST

then the other things that MOST BASIC MULTIPLAYER games have in them NExt


is that better ?

Multiplayer has MANY MANY other downfalls that will effect the gameplay so lets not soley focus on the cheats is all i am trying to say....

There is much more wrong with Multiplayer than people haxoring

Basically what they have done is alowed  people to edit the ini just like you could in Masseffect 1 to get god mode and unlock weapons and armor that wasnt even avalible.... How bright was that...... BF2 and Americas army did that on release... Left the Dev Console Commands in......   which could also be done with adding the command line to your short cut to enable console on game launch...... how they gonna find that ?

I mean no disrespect... just upsets me that they didnt test this more and I myself can see the effect on the campaign..... I have seen several buggy areas... Broken quest lines and many other bugged issues in singleplayer than other previous ME games and i feel Multiplayer is at fault here...... Multiplayer Forced me to Install Origin on my computer..... GEEZE i have STEAM XFIRE ORIGIN ... HOW MUCH control do these companies need with the software i bought...  I dont even wanna go into the endings so far ..........................................................feel jipped on that too.

just gets me mad dude ..... sorry!

I got ME1 and ME2 on steam and now i have to install MORE damn software to run ME3 ... that makes me mad to!!!!!!!!!   i like keeping everything at one place..now im having to strow crap everywhere. .Thanks EA/Bioware

Run Origin through process explorer and you well see it open connections to www.007spyguard.com as well...

Modifié par hchadw, 14 mars 2012 - 02:18 .

[hchadw]

Zambayoshi wrote...

I'd be interested to know whether the cheating you guys see is limited to the PC platform or whether any console users have run into it as well.

I wouldnt be suprised ... there are ways to get files off an xbox or ps3 and put YOUR modded ones on there..... google it

[Soshigenkaku]

hchadw wrote...



I have done 3 play throughs and you can only do the multiplayer with minimal side quests and vice versa... they can be done to an extent to where they effect each other but it will not restrict what content your exposed to (DOES THAT MAKE YOU HAPPIER SAID THAT WAY )!~!!!!!!

If i put anticheat at the Top of the list would it make you happy ?????/

K

ANTICHEAT FIRST AND FORMOST

then the other things that MOST BASIC MULTIPLAYER games have in them NExt


is that better ?

Multiplayer has MANY MANY other downfalls that will effect the gameplay so lets not soley focus on the cheats is all i am trying to say....

There is much more wrong with Multiplayer than people haxoring

Basically what they have done is alowed  people to edit the ini just like you could in Masseffect 1 to get god mode and unlock weapons and armor that wasnt even avalible.... How bright was that...... BF2 and Americas army did that on release... Left the Dev Console Commands in......   which could also be done with adding the command line to your short cut to enable console on game launch...... how they gonna find that ?

Anticheat seems more a decoupling from the SP then truely anticheat though in how they'd need to do it.  And true, there are things that need done besides that, I've not challenged any other points about your multiplayer assessment besides the pvp and anticheat ones.  As I said, I agree with most of your points but those two being prioritized, and I don't feel a fully featured anticheat suite similar to PB or VAC would be needed really.

To fix the cheats really the simplest thing may be to make the multiplayer not use the coalesced.ini type bit and instead just read one off the cloud (basically have one on the same server it checks DLC vs or on the Origin main server for the game) and have it pull the settings from there when a host is created.  That might be inelegant but would at least kill the general cheating and make it more difficult to do.

A bit more detailed might be to make it do a double check or somesuch at beginning and end to ensure that in the course of the game the settings on the host were not modified, also make it do a quick 'version check' with clients to ensure all have the same checksum or whatever other value to match up on join and credit/xp distribution at end and any outliers receive zero.  Wouldn't be too harsh I wouldn't think since anyone playing multi should have a connection able to handle the transmission of a hash or checksum verification, or even a full coalesced.ini check at host creation (since I don't beleive the file is big enough to make even a low grade cable/DSL connection blink).

Even the more detailed idea wouldn't be passing a huge increase in traffic overall, and while relativly simple in design would certainl slash the number of cheaters as you'd likely need ALOT more work to actually cheat.

Alot of the other points like mic muting and text chat are quality of life improvements also but certainly a much more 'basic' aspect of multiplayer as we know it in this era of gaming.

[hchadw]

Soshigenkaku wrote...

hchadw wrote...



I have done 3 play throughs and you can only do the multiplayer with minimal side quests and vice versa... they can be done to an extent to where they effect each other but it will not restrict what content your exposed to (DOES THAT MAKE YOU HAPPIER SAID THAT WAY )!~!!!!!!

If i put anticheat at the Top of the list would it make you happy ?????/

K

ANTICHEAT FIRST AND FORMOST

then the other things that MOST BASIC MULTIPLAYER games have in them NExt


is that better ?

Multiplayer has MANY MANY other downfalls that will effect the gameplay so lets not soley focus on the cheats is all i am trying to say....

There is much more wrong with Multiplayer than people haxoring

Basically what they have done is alowed  people to edit the ini just like you could in Masseffect 1 to get god mode and unlock weapons and armor that wasnt even avalible.... How bright was that...... BF2 and Americas army did that on release... Left the Dev Console Commands in......   which could also be done with adding the command line to your short cut to enable console on game launch...... how they gonna find that ?

Anticheat seems more a decoupling from the SP then truely anticheat though in how they'd need to do it.  And true, there are things that need done besides that, I've not challenged any other points about your multiplayer assessment besides the pvp and anticheat ones.  As I said, I agree with most of your points but those two being prioritized, and I don't feel a fully featured anticheat suite similar to PB or VAC would be needed really.

To fix the cheats really the simplest thing may be to make the multiplayer not use the coalesced.ini type bit and instead just read one off the cloud (basically have one on the same server it checks DLC vs or on the Origin main server for the game) and have it pull the settings from there when a host is created.  That might be inelegant but would at least kill the general cheating and make it more difficult to do.

A bit more detailed might be to make it do a double check or somesuch at beginning and end to ensure that in the course of the game the settings on the host were not modified, also make it do a quick 'version check' with clients to ensure all have the same checksum or whatever other value to match up on join and credit/xp distribution at end and any outliers receive zero.  Wouldn't be too harsh I wouldn't think since anyone playing multi should have a connection able to handle the transmission of a hash or checksum verification, or even a full coalesced.ini check at host creation (since I don't beleive the file is big enough to make even a low grade cable/DSL connection blink).

Even the more detailed idea wouldn't be passing a huge increase in traffic overall, and while relativly simple in design would certainl slash the number of cheaters as you'd likely need ALOT more work to actually cheat.

Alot of the other points like mic muting and text chat are quality of life improvements also but certainly a much more 'basic' aspect of multiplayer as we know it in this era of gaming.

Yeah thats how other Anticheat Stream Databases work... they have a suppository of MD5 Hashes for Known File sizes and File types... and if the file is modified by 1 bit it flags it.

Again sorry if i seemed hostile... just hate watchin a game i love seem like its getting abused and beat down to money hungry CEOs who are more concerned with the sales of DLC

Modifié par hchadw, 14 mars 2012 - 02:22 .

[Soshigenkaku]

hchadw wrote...



Yeah thats how other Anticheat Stream Databases work... they have a suppository of MD5 Hashes for Known File sizes and File types... and if the file is modified by 1 bit it flags it.

Wouldn't think it would be hard to implement MD5 hash checking though even on just the coalesced.ini or equivalent for Multiplayer though.  Have it stored on the Origin cloud and accessed at:

Lobby Create
Match End hosts AND clients check against Origin MD5(success or failure, at the xp/score screen checks before displaying scores)
On Join to Lobby for all clients.

Have the host player bounce off origin's MD5 check, clients check host MD5 they receive vs Origin.

If any differences found on host when they create, refuses lobby create.
If any differences found at match end, any players with invalid MD5 receive zero credits/xp
If any differences found in client vs host, client is disconnected with message of host game files being modified.

While it wouldn't stop on the fly in RAM changes during the game, it would put alot of hurdles against the current crop of cheaters.

[Locoluke]

I think they need to define exactly what is and is not cheating, then make changes (such as hard-coding the multiplayer values into the game rather than keeping it in an easily accessible config file, or hosting said values on a server), or at the very least warn players that they must use the default multiplayer values or suffer consequences. Retroactive banning of accounts strikes me as a heavy-handed approach to this problem, and is unfair because until now there had been no statement concerning policy towards editing the file. In fact, for the first two games, bioware representatives actually HELPED people edit those files. I agree that the multiplayer requires a rethinking of the situation, but not that it should cause people to lose access to games or game features they've paid for due to a misunderstanding.

In my opinion, the best approach would be to host the server settings on a cloud FOR PUBLIC GAMES. Private games should take the values from the host's config file, and levels gained in them should not contribute to one's leaderboard position unless the file meets an md5 checksum verification.
This lets people get the best of both worlds: people can play how they want, and someone messing with a config file doesn't cause "unfair" gains in leaderboard position.

[Soshigenkaku]

Locoluke wrote...

I think they need to define exactly what is and is not cheating, then make changes (such as hard-coding the multiplayer values into the game rather than keeping it in an easily accessible config file, or hosting said values on a server), or at the very least warn players that they must use the default multiplayer values or suffer consequences. Retroactive banning of accounts strikes me as a heavy-handed approach to this problem, and is unfair because until now there had been no statement concerning policy towards editing the file. In fact, for the first two games, bioware representatives actually HELPED people edit those files. I agree that the multiplayer requires a rethinking of the situation, but not that it should cause people to lose access to games or game features they've paid for due to a misunderstanding.

In my opinion, the best approach would be to host the server settings on a cloud FOR PUBLIC GAMES. Private games should take the values from the host's config file, and levels gained in them should not contribute to one's leaderboard position unless the file meets an md5 checksum verification.
This lets people get the best of both worlds: people can play how they want, and someone messing with a config file doesn't cause "unfair" gains in leaderboard position.

Problem is as long as packs can be purchased with credits OR with bioware points this directly impacts EA/Bioware's bottom line.  Granted it is more a theoretical line but it is there, and if people could fire up a private server, and trick the game into letting them even just waltz through Gold difficulty doing 1 shot kills on everything and just blasting through in say, 10 minutes with Random enemy, Map, and a full extraction with 10 waves survived....it would completely nuke their theoretical bottom line which is mucho bado for them on a corporate level.

Taking out the cash part, you then run into the overall life cycle of the actual game, how long people will remain engaged or focused on it.  The unlock system with its randomness and costs associated with the difficulty of Gold runs means that there is a rough estimate of the average timeframe it will take for a given playerbase to acquire the majority of the items are relative upgrade levels.  Once the player base has reached that majority point while still playing the game some that is the point where the proverbial 'treadmill' begins to become less driving and people leave as there is no longer any reason to focus on it or strive to gain more credits or experience or even to beat enemy X.  This means that DLC has to come down the pipe faster in order to maintain playerbase, which requires dev resources and time, but if too much time is taken then you lose players completely.  This perhaps ties into that bottom line aspect but more in the way people aren't going to BUY a DLC/expansion to a game they already burned out and used up/did everything WAY before said content came around.

Games require some level of time sinks if a company hopes to maintain a development schedule and production in conjunction with a revenue stream (be it from in game purchases OR purely by DLC/Expanding the game) and in this sense since the speed/acheivement of the multiplayer rather directly effects that time sink aspect they MUST address it and not allow such even in a private setting.

Only wa it would be allowed for a private came I could see is you gain no credits or leaderboard or N7 rating via private custom game.

Modifié par Soshigenkaku, 14 mars 2012 - 03:17 .

[KainD]

 @hchadw
What the hell is an anti-cheat software? It doesn't work like that in ME3. 

Listen up guys this is useful information:

The "hacking" is done by editing ones coalesced.bin file. There are advanced editors out there that allow one to edit almost any part of the game: classes, powers, weapons, credits, anything. For example I can make a Biotic throw to deal 9999 damage, have a radius of 100m and be instant cast, without a cooldown. That will be MY game file. And I do like to mod things in this game, to enjoy the SP more, I made a mod that changes powers and how they work here and there, to make game more interesting for me ( like for example making power projectiles fly faster, for more fast-phased game, and better aiming.). However I always keep a backup copy of the bin file, as it also impacts the MP. And I don't like spoiling MP for other people, I play with some changes only with buddy's that support modding too, that do the same, and that we make mods together with, but never with random people.

Mods can easily be carried from PC to consoles btw, replacing original files.

And here's the most important thing: since everyone has a little different copy of ME3, aka deluxe/colectors edition and what not, to avoid conflict the game uses the file of the host. So this means that - IF YOU WANT TO AVOID HACKERS, CREATE A GAME YOURSELF. HACKERS CAN ONLY MOD THE GAME IF THEY ARE BEING A HOST.

Hope this helps.

Modifié par KainD, 14 mars 2012 - 03:46 .

[Soshigenkaku]

KainD wrote...

 @hchadw
What the hell is an anti-cheat software? It doesn't work like that in ME3. 

Listen up guys this is useful information:

The "hacking" is done by editing ones coalesced.bin file. There are advanced editors out there that allow one to edit almost any part of the game: classes, powers, weapons, credits, anything. For example I can make a Biotic throw to deal 9999 damage, have a radius of 100m and be instant cast, without a cooldown. That will be MY game file. And I do like to mod things in this game, to enjoy the SP more, I made a mod that changes powers and how they work here and there, to make game more interesting for me. However I always keep a backup copy of the bin file, as it also impacts the MP. And I don't like spoiling MP for other people, I play with some changes only with buddy's that support modding too, that do the same, and that we make mods together with, but never with random people.

Mods can easily be carried from PC to consoles btw, replacing original files.

And here's the most important thing: since everyone has a little different copy of ME3, aka deluxe/colectors edition and what not, to avoid conflict the game uses the file of the host. So this means that - IF YOU WANT TO AVOID HACKERS, CREATE A GAME YOURSELF. HACKERS CAN ONLY MOD THE GAME IF THEY ARE BEING A HOST.

Hope this helps.

Think we eventually came around to what the cause is and how Bioware could address it =)

The issue with hacking is also, there is something to be said to just throwing down in a quick match and interacting with people you don't know, and the hacking also rather directly effects Bioware/EA due to the model they used for the multiplayer to add a life cycle to the overall setup.

Most all the versions have the same coalesced I beleive since all the weapons are present in every game it seems just whether they are activly available.  (I may be wrong about N7 Arsenal items however?) since I'm not entirely sound on how it tracks the activity/usability of unlockable items, but it isn't outside reason to consider using a single player coalesced and require a serverside (Origin side) coalesced equivalent file to dictate Multiplayer for Bioware to not need to worry about these things.

[KainD]

Soshigenkaku wrote...

Think we eventually came around to what the cause is and how Bioware could address it =)

The issue with hacking is also, there is something to be said to just throwing down in a quick match and interacting with people you don't know, and the hacking also rather directly effects Bioware/EA due to the model they used for the multiplayer to add a life cycle to the overall setup.

Most all the versions have the same coalesced I beleive since all the weapons are present in every game it seems just whether they are activly available.  (I may be wrong about N7 Arsenal items however?) since I'm not entirely sound on how it tracks the activity/usability of unlockable items, but it isn't outside reason to consider using a single player coalesced and require a serverside (Origin side) coalesced equivalent file to dictate Multiplayer for Bioware to not need to worry about these things.

Yes an online copy of a bin file that would dictate the game rules for every player would fix most all of the hacking. As of now every players "rules book" is located at their computer, and they are free to rewrite it as they like, and get others to read it. 

Modifié par KainD, 14 mars 2012 - 03:50 .

[snfonseka]

BW, I believe you decided to store some of the important data of MP in client side. I don't know why you took that decision but my point is why didn't you encrypt those files properly? Because of what I have seen in certain forums, if you have the right tools and minimal amount of knowledge regarding modding, changing those MP related data is not hard at all.

Modifié par snfonseka, 14 mars 2012 - 05:14 .

[KainD]

snfonseka wrote...

BW, I believe you decided to store some of the important data of MP in client side. I don't know why you took that decision but my point is why didn't you encrypt those files properly? Because of what I have seen in certain forums, if you have the right tools and minimal amount of knowledge regarding modding, changing those MP related data is not hard at all.

Those are encrypted fine, just a guy that knows quite some about modding, produces tools that make it easy for everyone. 
The main problem is having MP data on the client side. 

[retsmot]

add text chat please!

[chance52]

I'm sorry but can we just be adults about this subject? If the leader of a match is cheating, get on team speak and tell them to take it to a private match with their buddies. Or if you don't have a headset just log off and find a new match. This tattling nonsense is ridiculous, and I call it tattling because cheating in this type of multiplayer does not adversely impact other players other than maybe inconveniencing them for 3-5 minutes. But last I checked the ME3 servers will do that too. Documenting everything you see then running off to get a stranger banned is ridiculous.

If someone is cheating to get more pretend money, I can see why BioWare cares, because they are selling pretend money. But that is it, everything else just doesn't matter because it just isn't prevalent. If I log into a match where my weak weapon suddenly can take down a Geth Prime I just look for a new match, I'm not going to write down the players names and send an email off that will get their accounts banned for simply wanting to 'God Mode' a silver match. If cheating gets to the point where you are running into this every other match that is one thing, but I have been in a ton of matches both in the demo and after the game was released and only ran into a 'cheater' once, and that just made my SMG twice as powerful, nothing else was noticeable. Should that leader get his account banned, or should I just exit the match?

[marshalleck]

chance52 wrote...

I have been in a ton of matches both in the demo and after the game was released and only ran into a 'cheater' once, and that just made my SMG twice as powerful, nothing else was noticeable. Should that leader get his account banned, or should I just exit the match?

Ban both of you just to be safe imo

[Sabbatine]

hchadw wrote...

PVP is where real skill is at... Not taking down a dumb bot that can get lured into areas of the map and get stuck to get raped.

I don't think that is accurate as a broad statement.  It is true at the top levels of competition in pvp oriented games and you may be one of those people, but in my experience the opposite is true more often than not.  Most entry level players perform at a level worse than your average ai bot.  Players can improve in ways bots can't and over time players can better themselves but honestly it never feels like these players are in any shortage.

In my opinion, dropping into a group of completely random people for a gold match and winning it without intentionaly stacking the deck is just as much a show of skill as someone doing the same in a competitive game.  Actually I wish there was a way to set random as your class choice and weapon choice (the game picks two, you can drop either one or keep both) and the game provides you with a class who's level depends on the difficulty you have selected.

hchadw wrote...

I feel the pain though... i see how long it takes to unlock stuff myself... which is why i consider multiplayer worthless... I cant enjoy it in the state its in. Seems very lacking and sort of poorly thought out.

There are some weapons and classes I really wanted to unlock but because I didn't get them immediately I was forced to start trying out unfamiliar weapons.  I think the method by which they distribute loot is actually quite good in that it encourages players to branch out.  I went through more spectre boxes than I can count before getting a widow (my preferred weapon for silver difficulty) but because of this I learned to use the Falcon and a few other weapons effectively and really enjoyed more aspects of the game than I thought I would.  It's painful opening box after box and finding out you just unlocked yet another shotgun instead of the weapon you wanted, but over all it encourages diversity which makes the actual matches more interesting.

[snfonseka]

KainD wrote...

snfonseka wrote...

BW, I believe you decided to store some of the important data of MP in client side. I don't know why you took that decision but my point is why didn't you encrypt those files properly? Because of what I have seen in certain forums, if you have the right tools and minimal amount of knowledge regarding modding, changing those MP related data is not hard at all.

Those are encrypted fine, just a guy that knows quite some about modding, produces tools that make it easy for everyone. 
The main problem is having MP data on the client side. 

I looked into the encryption myself and I don't think current level of encryption is enough. If you look and the procedures the modders have used to mod the game you will understand that. Yes, maintaining MP data in client side is problematic, but I think BW has its' reasons to take that kind of decision.

[MrLee95]

retsmot wrote...

add text chat please!

Agree with this!!!!


Also, sorry but I have to ask, if i cheat in multiplayer will I get a better ending in the single player game??!??

Sorry just had to!

[swarm242]

 Now when you're saying cheating happening in multiplayer you are of course talking about how the unlock bug is cheating paying customers out of the weapons and characters they have earned or payed for and EA offering no compensation or word on it, right?
:innocent:

Modifié par swarm242, 14 mars 2012 - 09:13 .

[DragonRageGT]

hchadw wrote...

me too.. i have gotten stuck in places as well but hey.... that guy has 50 million spectre packs....its a shame im stuck in a wall... they should really fix the cheats.... i dont mind being stuck in a wall

Little sarcasim for ya

This needs to be the Ta Fix list:

No Text Chat (cant type in a multiplayer game... WHAT) And if you do this dont mess up like Battlefield 3 did and put the chat all in your Face ... nice cosy spot in the upper left hand of the screen would be nice

No Mute Options (cant mute the guy blasting gansta rap or calling everyone on the team Fing Noobs)

No In-Game Buddy System (have to use a forum/Origin to find friends while other EA titles like Battlefield have a
buddy Chat system)

No- Anticheat detection (Active scan for Expliots/Hax/Weapon Mods Edited INI values with CVar checks ETC)

Needs PVP as well. (We have fought your AI for 3 Games LET US FIGHT EACH OTHER NOW!!!!!)

This game has the best, complex, and most comprehensible combat system i have ever seen. I love it ... which is why i dont wanna see it die............................................................the REAPERS CANT HAVE MY GAME!!!!!!!!

I agree we need all those fixes and fast, except for PvP. As long as they keep it cheats free, balanced, challenging and not too predictable in Gold league. If I wanted PvP I'd go play BF1942. Best one, IMHO.

[DragonRageGT]

MrLee95 wrote...

retsmot wrote...

add text chat please!

Agree with this!!!!


Also, sorry but I have to ask, if i cheat in multiplayer will I get a better ending in the single player game??!??

Sorry just had to!

Egomaniacs are crazy about being on the top of a ranking. Any ranking. Even a co-op MP where there's nothing at the top. Reset the rankings every number of days and cheaters will go to another games where they can think they are great players, when in fact they are just cheaters.

[Cookiegobbler]

1 Simple fix can eliminate cheaters and hackers.

Make the entire Multiplayer Server-based. Coalesced, your character's level, your unlocks, your credits. All server sided.

You won't be able to create cheating servers, cause the coalesced would be on BioWare's server. The server you are using to host the game.

You wouldn't be able to hack your own credits, levels or unlocks cause EVERTHING you do multiplayer-wise will be saved on BioWare's server (not your computer).

The worst thing you can do then is aimbotting so you can get the most bot kills, but seeing a person flail about shooting everything in the head that moves with uncanny accuracy is easely spotted (and frapsed).

Modifié par Cookiegobbler, 14 mars 2012 - 10:29 .