the guy temporary banned like 3 times ! i got 3 message in 1 week that he temporary banned ! every message has different time and date
why the heel they won't ban him permanently ?

Money

All games do need a proof of 99,9999%.

Originally posted by Lega:

All games do need a proof of 99.9999%

Not true. They need a human to review the reports. A human does not need to be 99,9999% sure to ban. A human can never be 99,9999 sure, yet a human reviewing a report can ban, PUBG does have humans that can issue bans.

The issue here is that this suspect cheater is not getting reviewed by a human and PUBG's automated anticheat doesn't have the data that allows it to permanently ban. So they keep getting unbanned. Each cycle increases the chance a human reviews until finally they either have enough data or a human reviews the gameplay and puts a ban on it.

Such things just add to frustration as players know they are a cheat and the process informs them that PUBG give the cheat the benefit of the doubt over and over, sometimes getting over 100 additional games in before being banned or worse yet, never being banned.

99.9999% is an invented standard. PUBG use it to mask not having enough resources to manage anticheat bans. The reports aren't being human reviewed enough when a player has a heap of independent players reporting them.

come with me if you don't want to die

Originally posted by Shady Knights:

Not true. They need a human to review the reports. A human does not need to be 99,9999% sure to ban. A human can never be 99,9999 sure, yet a human reviewing a report can ban, PUBG does have humans that can issue bans.

We had this talk already and you wrote the point on your own why it doesn't work as you said.

If they don't have resources to check every case they, do hire more people or change the system.

One way to do so is using the hidden report system most shooters use where players don't get a notification about if a cheater got flagged for further investigation. We know PUBG wouldn't remove this system entirely so they stop sending most of the notifications and only share those where the accounts finally gets reviewed.

Everything else doesn't make sense because your point of frustration is correct tho.

I thought, games do use a 99% or something but the former anti-cheat developer of Riot explained it in detail. He said, "99,9999", which means, they do allow 1 false positive case each 10.000 bans. I did try to find the time of the video where he said this but the video goes 2 hours so I couldn't find it yet but I will have it next time.

The other source also named pretty much the same where games almost need to detect the cheats otherwise the cheater can't be banned. HWID bans aren't solid but even if, this point won't change because in this case, a falsely banned account couldn't even return to play shooters.

Getting falsely banned is the worst thing that can happen to a player online and this is why they do take this point so serious. Your point about frustration is legit but kind of irrelevant if you compare it to this.

"Everything else doesn't make sense because your point of frustration is correct tho." the lying tencent spoof account is short circuiting from mandarin

Paraphrasing the broken English here:
'One way to change the system is to just trust pubg is permanently removing cheaters purchasing DLC from their own game'
...No reason to suspect PUBG developer wants residual income from the collective cheaters. lol

99.9999%:
As if no one has ever heard of an appeal process reviewing the track record player statistics, in-game server data, and 1 minute report video evidence. Let's set the standards so high they're an excuse to not act. Again...No reason to suspect they want residual income from the collective cheaters.

The point of permanently banning cheaters is to instill fear in those considering to do the same. Lenient policies like temporary bans three times in a row just leads to more cheating and a convenience if...There's no reason to suspect PUBG wants residual income from the collective cheaters.

Originally posted by Lega:

I thought, games do use a 99% or something but the former anti-cheat developer of Riot explained it in detail. He said, "99,9999", which means, they do allow 1 false positive case each 10.000 bans. I did try to find the time of the video where he said this but the video goes 2 hours so I couldn't find it yet but I will have it next time.

He does indeed say it. It is just industry spin though. He also said he false banned people in a ban wave when he didn't get the pattern right so it contradicts what he said about 99.9999%

It is just a target thrown around that has no substance under it.

"If" it was that figure, nobody would get banned ever as you'd need just a tiny bit of doubt to make it fail the threshold.

As I pointed out, any human involvement makes it impossible to have that standard. Devs are humans, they can and do make mistakes.

Criminal trials are often judged "beyond reasonable doubt", reasonable doubt is subjective, decided by a jury and does not need to be 99.9999% right.

Why should cheating in online games be judged at a higher burden of proof than a criminal trial? Who would expect such a high standard?

It is not a valid excuse to use for not banning obvious cheating.

Originally posted by AughtOughtNahtNaught:

"Everything else doesn't make sense because your point of frustration is correct tho." the lying tencent spoof account is short circuiting from mandarin

Paraphrasing the broken English here:
'One way to change the system is to just trust pubg is permanently removing cheaters purchasing DLC from their own game'
...No reason to suspect PUBG developer wants residual income from the collective cheaters. lol

99.9999%:
As if no one has ever heard of an appeal process reviewing the track record player statistics, in-game server data, and 1 minute report video evidence. Let's set the standards so high they're an excuse to not act. Again...No reason to suspect they want residual income from the collective cheaters.

The point of permanently banning cheaters is to instill fear in those considering to do the same. Lenient policies like temporary bans three times in a row just leads to more cheating and a convenience if...There's no reason to suspect PUBG wants residual income from the collective cheaters.

Lega is a native German speaker. Look at post history and see their first post years back, it is all in German.

You are right about the appeals process. How is there even such a thing if the chances of getting it wrong are only 1 in 10,000. Yet here it is, highlighted by the community manager, other comments on here also saying perm bans were false and reversed.

https://www.reddit.com/r/PUBATTLEGROUNDS/comments/11259sy/perma_banned_from_pubg_apparently_claims_im/

Es ist einfach, jede Sprache zum Zwecke der Täuschung zu übersetzen.
包括英语到德语或德语到普通话或普通话到英语。
小菜一碟。

Tell me something new. This discussion topic seems very similar to this one.
https://steamcommunity.com/app/578080/discussions/1/6620894968771921021/

System-automated bans (based on X player reports within X amount of time and/or other system-detected patterns) are often temporary only. For example, if 15 players report 1 person within 10 minutes, there's a decent chance that this 1 person will be "removed from the game" (i.e. it potentially catches blatant rampage cheaters before they finish the game). Due to a lot of frustration-without-evidence reports, this also catches good and lucky players (and subtle cheaters) who were not blatantly cheating. So the ban might be temporary only.

Permanent bans require blatant evidence and a human to review it. It isn't clear when a human might actually look at the reports. My guess is, they look at it by the 3rd temp ban. But even then, if they don't see clear evidence, they might let them off after another temporary ban.

Originally posted by Shady Knights:

You are right about the appeals process. How is there even such a thing if the chances of getting it wrong are only 1 in 10,000. Yet here it is, highlighted by the community manager, other comments on here also saying perm bans were false and reversed.

People can appeal a ban because of the fact accounts getting stolen. It isn't about the proof of cheating but who cheated.

What do you think how high the % is if a cheaters does follow a players trough a wall without line of sight?

One in a billion or even trillion?

99,999 sounds a lot, but in fact solid evidence is well above that mark.

Do you remember the cheater who killed 20 players in ranked with a pistol a cross the map?

I was sure one single match like that is enough to perma ban him so I checked his account 2 days ago and he never played again.

Originally posted by AughtOughtNahtNaught:

Paraphrasing the broken English here:
'One way to change the system is to just trust pubg is permanently removing cheaters purchasing DLC from their own game'
...No reason to suspect PUBG developer wants residual income from the collective cheaters. lol

Yes, my grammar is still not good, but I'm working on it. Still, the argument games would benefit from cheaters is wrong. We already know what happens when cheaters can no longer cheat in games, simply because it has become almost impossible. If they like the game they will stop cheating and if they don't they will find another game but few will stop altogether.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgHiuNtvR0g&list=LL&index=69&t=868s

Once the game solved the cheater problem, some cheaters leave but many legit players return so there is no reason to fear it from the perspective of a game.

Originally posted by Lega:

People can appeal a ban because of the fact accounts getting stolen. It isn't about the proof of cheating but who cheated.

Steve the Happy Whale directed appeals due to hacking (not account hijack) via the support process on the reddit link. It's clear you can appeal a false ban. False bans have happened in PUBG.

Originally posted by Lega:

What do you think how high the % is if a cheaters does follow a players trough a wall without line of sight?

If it's 99.9999 you'd want more than just a visual validation to make sure that it's a cheat/hack wouldn't you. You'd want some kind of evidence that a hack was responsible for the player doing that. Simply watching it is not 99.9999% positive. The possibility of it being a coincidence would always be present just on the visual alone.

You see, this example is exactly why it 99.9999% sure based off evidence does not pass the sniff test. A human can see it's a cheat, they don't have evidence of what the cheat is, other than what they can see, and thus they ban. They can not be 99.9999% sure...there's no way to even measure this. A human is allowed to be mistaken (hence the appeal process).

I think the "beyond reasonable doubt" is more likely being applied, not 99.9999% evidence based.

Originally posted by Lega:

Do you remember the cheater who killed 20 players in ranked with a pistol a cross the map?

Again...if the standard is 99.9999% evidence based, what is the evidence other than it looks really bad? The hack likely isn't detected at all, so the only evidence is how bad it looks to a human. If it's challenged, what evidence is produced to defend the decision? How can you prove there were hacks used?

Obviously this was a cheat, and they don't need to be 99.9999% sure based on evidence to ban them.


Being perfect should not come at the expense of doing the right thing.

I get every game start the usual "TEMPORARY BAN" message.
Had names plopping up 5 times with a Temporary Ban.
Probably they only cheated Temporarly for 99% of the time.
So it seems fair I guess.

Originally posted by Shady Knights:

Steve the Happy Whale directed appeals due to hacking (not account hijack) via the support process on the reddit link. It's clear you can appeal a false ban. False bans have happened in PUBG.

Battleeye falsely banned thousands of accounts at once by faulty code so regardless of the rules it will happen.

Originally posted by Shady Knights:

If it's 99.9999 you'd want more than just a visual validation to make sure that it's a cheat/hack wouldn't you. You'd want some kind of evidence that a hack was responsible for the player doing that. Simply watching it is not 99.9999% positive.

They don't take a calculator all the time to verify the decision because some are clear without doing so because of the example I showed above but they will do it if it comes to ban cheaters based on data, for example.

In this case, they need data and this is how cheaters can play up to 100+ matches before they can strike them out.

You may think PUBG does not do everything it could but you know it does something. If so, you wouldn't have problems to believe PUBG would have change the system already to reduce the frustration of the players. It doesn't cost money, it is a small change so this can't be the reason.

@Lega
So basically, "All games do need a proof of 99.9999%" which is what you said initially, is wrong because you now say they make mistakes and false ban, and you also say that it's often up to human judgement which is not 99.9999% accurate.

What are you arguing about?