Battlefield V will use "learnable recoil" like Rust - General Discussion

Fact. The games are changing... The Development approach is re-adjusting... The "meta" is changing... (the days of "no-recoil" instant bullets FPS games will soon be gone) Are you ready?

Possibly.

Frankly as a non player of Battlefield V who cares, They change the recoil of weapons , They make tools throwable, The change damage of weapons, bullets tools Get used to changes, its a new learning curve

Tools have been throwable since Black ops so that's not anything new and damage of weapons has changed and will keep changing in every Battlefield,Cod or Black ops. All you've just said is not new to players that actually play games of this genre.

To repeat, as a NON PLAYER of those games i dont really care what they have or do not have, I thought i had made that clear but it seems , When i said "THEY" i mean the developers of THIS game, after all this is a RUST forum,

This only makes clear that you don't play Battlefield V. Quite long sentence.

I apologise for not making it shorter for you, and of course not making the words smaller and simpler to understand the "quite a long sentence" at last it sinks in , you must have asked an adult to explain it to you, i only had to state it twice,

all I was trying to point out is that other (AAA titles) are picking up on learnable recoil - and soon I suspect it will be a default feature of the genre (opposed to being a "cool, novelty" feature). This has nothing to do with what games who plays (aside from just general knowledge info into the FPS genra), but more so directed at all the crybabies who have been complaining about learnable recoil. TLDR: Learnable recoil will be the future of FPS games. Deal with it.

It better not be, as I don't want people to run undetectable hardware mouse macros in all future FPS.

Good point, however on the contrary - if this issue become that widespread, hopefully some new anti-cheat technologies will be developed. Its like dealing with the problem (any problem) comes in 2 options: 1) Ignore it an hope it stays small scale and hidden "under the rug". Being passive about it. 2) If the problem becomes big enough, something definitely will change in the industry to tackle this issue. Being proactive about it.

Would you care for active keyloggers that map your input data installed on your computer? I definitely don't. Hardware scripts stay undetectable in their current form and the keyword really is "undetectable"; Common forms of anti-cheat checks for injections of code and .exes that modify game logic in runtime, since it messes with the game process itself, its easily detectable. Windows has native support of mouse macros, so it's not like games are just gonna tell windows to remove that, so any software checking for mouse macros at best has to do educated guesses that the mouse movements you are doing are in fact scripted and not really your hand doing that. Huge can of worms, as you can guess. It's better if game sticks to average patterns, like Siege has. Basically a fairly set definition of how much the gun will kick with each shot but small amounts of RNG.

Don't use capital letter after comma and remember to have a dot at the end of this sentence. Ps: I can see that you like using commas, but come on not at the end of a sentence.

Me neither, but Im pretty sure that our "keys are logged" already when we are actively playing a specific game. i.e. when I launch Rust - EAC with also launch and monitor my keystrokes (at least inside the game). I know Battleye definitely does it when I play ARK or PUBG. I Googled around and I cant find much info on what are "hardware" scripts. I only know software scripts which will work via 3rd party software, or sometimes come pre-packaged with gaming mice, like the new Logitech, or even my Razer mouse has one (I keep it all disabled of course). Software scripts can be detected in multiple ways, but I think we both agree on that. Games will not - but that is why we have rootkit-like anticheat software that comes along with the game, right? Don't get me wrong - the idea of having 3rd party rootkits on my PC does not sound appealing to me - but such is the price of "security". yes, a can of worms, but this is what "Big Data" analysis is for. And other methods of course (statistical probability, etc...). 10-20 years ago Big Data wasn't a thing, but technology improves every year... A super simplified example - if out of 10,000 players it is statistically improbable to hit a headshot with AK at 150m with same 2 bullets in the same spot on a moving target within a given time interval (re-adjustment of aim accounted for) - well then then answer is pretty clear. Combine that with added "player behavior" trend analysis, and you can "layer" on additional red flags where other "very improbable" shots have been made by the same person, ultimately leading to a verdict that the player is cheating. Yes - you may disagree that it might not be 100% efficient (i.e. prone to false positives), but nothing in life is 100% guaranteed (aside from death), and I'd be happy if they can get this anti-cheat system to work with 95% accuracy.

When I say hardware I am being a bit facetious, I'm talking more about raw mouse input and how windows handles this, normally it doesn't send that information to software (like games, thats why there are mouse sensitivity sliders), but when you for example work in the Windows macros you are "closer" (less lines of communication, to put it simply) to the hardware input from the mouse. This does however not matter, as 3rd party software like you exemplify is currently not detectable and while anti-cheats could notice their .exes that's not a strong enough reason to think you're hacking (as this software provides more than just macros) (and this is also not counting the other 99% of legitimate uses macros have). I don't think VAC or battleye logs keystrokes specifically. If you have a source please provide, because then i'm happy to not play games using them. First of all, I can't believe that you'd put a rootkit on your PC just to find a """"hacker""" (macros really arent hacks, they give finite advantages), that barely gets anything out of his fancy scripts. Second, you would need to employ some serious neural networks or AI to actually find and recognise these patterns in runtime. Your example is a bit destroyed already by mentioning the fact the player hits a moving target, that's two shots in two different places not same, which can be entirely random that you hit or driven by player input. Player input is one thing. If the player moves the mouse at all during shooting it completely ruins the pattern. Adn finding parts of patterns everywhere will never be good enough. Further than this, even if a specific pattern is 100% locked down thanks to many players using identical scripts, its very easy to dodge that by just slightly altering it, losing 0.5% of effective following is worth not getting banned, in the end. And at some point you have to give leeway, because we again come back to the problem of differentiating those who memorised from those who didn't. Also gathering this kind of data is going to be very hard in EU under GDPR. While 95% efficient anti-cheat is good, what I like even more is an anti-cheat that has 0% of false positives. People will simply not play a game where being good makes the robot think they're hacking. Thus the most reliable way to detect mouse macros is to literally scan the computer for any files that seem to resemble that and forcefully delete them. This is called malware. But even ignoring all of that, and if recognising the patterns work, why spend SO much time and energy on something that can be fixed by adding a float that shifts between 0.5 to -0.5 with every shot? Mouse macros don't give you a substantial advantage. Using CS:GO as an example, while it is considered cheating, noone at Valve is working to find mouse macros. Simply because at low ranks it doesnt matter and if you're found out your shunned/reported, and at high ranks it genuinely does not help because you play against people who already know the patterns. They would mostly laugh as you're the one trying to cheat and still losing, because a macro won't cut it. And now you might think "well if its not that good then we dont have to bother looking for it and we can keep recoil patterns, yay!" In a game like rust, where the core gameplay loop doesn't revolve around shooting people, it's easier to just kick back and install a script when you've been teabagged by a naked man with an AK for the 85th time. Sure, some social shunning might happen, bans from local servers (if they are found out, but again, fi you guess you might just be banning a good shooter), but ultimately more and more people will instlal the script. And then the recoil pattern is a moot point. It's just an obstacle to overcome. Finally there's the matter of the actual game design about recoil patterns, where I consider them to be limiting player choice, but that's a different discussion for a different time. Conclusion: Not worthwhile to hunt macros compared to the gain, and very few games can get away with having them (almost exclusively E-sports scene)

Respect for this long text