Forum

No-nonsense, just to clarify why they say these things. Armyanticheat is =IGC=Wolf, he was banned for cheating in the past,
http://battletracker.com/playerstats/aao/811180/
http://aao25.com/forum/hall-of-fame/unreal-no-recoil-no-flash/

So that's why you see those messages. He did get a second chance, and that's why he still plays with us, this is the only exception I know of.

But that's not the topic here, let's remain with SF forceclass mod being tracked.

Assist had sf modded servers a while ago why do not mod servers with m16/saw?


Oh nevermind, ironsights are much harder to handle...

That's the thing what still bothers me when this would happen, never have I ever seen people forceclassing sf servers to m16, the only thing I sometimes saw was pistol rounds.

I still think many of the people prefer sf because it is the easier gun. I do not understand why otherwise people like sf more on a map like bridge.

For me personally, it totally changes gameplay to a point that it is not enjoyable. I love playing bridge on assault on normal servers as that's a challenge. But as soon as there is sf mods, random 203s from all possible sides (normally you just know there can be one at a certain place) can totally ruin the fun, or you have to camp hard until all 203s are thrown out, because if you are yellow against green people with sf at def, it's almost impossible to do anything anymore.

As for insurgent camp. Normally you just know there is 1 203 at a certain area, and you can move in the other trying to shoot somebody. With SF mod, I see big scopes at the windows, and 203s from every place being possible. You have to camp a lot more in order not to be killed in a cheap way.

With sf mod, it becomes easier to get a higher fragrate on the easier side, it will change balance, and in that way it will alternate stats.

I am ok with tracking sf mods seperately, as it is a different thing compared to normal weapons. But tracking them in 1 bunch, together with normal mapstats, is just destroying the integrity of the tracker system.

Sadly enough, we do not have any control over BT, so I do not even see, if others would agree, how we would be able to do something like that.

I do not see it on the banlist, are you able to login again?

Just wondering, what's the opinion on little bugs/exploits like getting on  the objective building on UA, and to get on top of a building on border?
I remember quite a few of those and could make them into a video if people would be interested.

Exploits.

I just deleted all comments of non-admins here.

Please keep ban appeals only for admins and the topic starters.

With that said, I see no mistake we have made in this ban, obviously tried no-recoil, and got caught with that, also circumvented it by making a new account. Only after getting caught again you try to appeal. If you really wanted to play this game so badly, you should not have tried using no recoil in the first place.

You said you only tried but never got the chance to use it. But what if you did not get banned and did get the chance to use it? Would you be using it for a longer times? Chances are high, people don't just get no recoil for nothing.

I see no reason to approve this appeal at all.
Appeal denied.

and some one mentioned a VOTE ?   and also said VOTES came from FORUM USERS MOSTLY  , well that seems very correct , i say a great %% of posters are admins  noobies or members that DONT even play the game.

IF YOU DONT PLAY  DONT VOTE ....

Maybe I did not play a lot lately, but as someone who is top 50 in total kills in this game, having played this game more than 1000 hours untracked as well, I think I can have my say as well despite me not being on line a lot lately.

You know what it is, even although some people don't play a lot at this moment, they are still more involved with this game by being active here, and some people, like me, intend to play more when they have the time for it.

I do agree more people in game should vote, but if you already got a notification when starting the game that you should vote now, and you still do not do it, and then the vote wins which you did not like, then who is to blame?

Furthermore, as it always is with more people, everybody will have a different opinion, the outcome will never satisfy everybody. But we are trying to make it as good for everybody as possible.

I still do not see the real issue with modded servers not being tracked, modding servers severely changes the balance of sides on a lot of maps, it is much easier to boost the stats in those servers. AFAIK modded servers are there purely for the fun factor, normal servers are usually a bit more competitive, so I do not see the issue of modded servers not being tracked
- They are meant for fun anyways, not for your own stats
- Balance is severely changed in some occasions, stats would be falsified.

If we had control over battletracker, I would be ok with making a seperate stats for modded servers, however, we do not have control over battletracker, I still think this was still the best option.

That's a shame.
AON was imo the only good AC provider.

AASA was just a lost case, the way their members acted was just sad sometimes. it felt like they became too powerhungry. The lost disc issue was the most horrible thing: they banned people for violations of maybe 3 years in the past, because they found the logs in a disc, now they banned maybe a few people with it, but in my opinion, those logfiles were overdue, not to mention their validity could not be checked anymore. Anybody who got banned 3 years later, without getting banned before, is probably not cheating anymore, banning them does nothing good for the community, because you are not keeping a cheater out of the game anymore, you actually make someone who made a mistake 3 years ago having nothing to lose anymore. So they can as well cheat now, now they have a banned account 3 years later.


ACI went too far with their goals of getting a good banlist, they even banned people who accidently joined a wrong server and got their honor hacked. I agree on banning those accounts, but with that they started making the background check public and this made many people calling people who did not know at all a cheater. Having bg checks publically, with many admins not even knowing when a link is valid or not, was plain sad.

AON however, had only private bg checks, and they had trainings into how to conduct bg checks. Now that was the only good way to go imo, as there where too many false accusations thanks to the public tool and bans for no severe stuff.
Also, for exploits in-game and the likes, the bans were actually 90 days, and then removed. This was good, because it was actually an anti-cheat measure: people know the consequences, and will not do it again, if you did a permanent ban, and you would have a linked account, people would witchhunt them anyways, so they had nothing to lose, gives more incentive to actually don't care anymore and start cheating.

This is why I personally think AON had the best policy of all anti cheat sites.

I know not everybody might agree with me on this case, and this is my personal opinion, but an anti-cheat site is NOT here to get a big banlist, an anti-cheat site IS here to make sure the game is as cheat-free as possible. Seeing the reasoning above I think AON had a good policy to stop cheaters, but still be fair enough to give gray areas a warning, so they will never do it again, more players, less cheaters, seems perfect to me.