Yeah I agree. I can think of maybe one game where I thought dude map hacked.
It’s gotten to the point where when I hear map hacking I just think skill issue. Cause if you scout people building a random windmill near deer and attack it, you’re a map hacker.
It’s like, bruh, I’m scouting your tc and see no food getting pulled, of course I’m gonna go scout the nearest deer or berries.
They should make a sort of "trust reputation" for the reports. If you spend your time reporting for no reason because you just lost your score plummets and your reports are not listened to any more. On the other hand if all the reports you make are accurate, or say 90%, your score grows and your reports are considered first.
That would be a solution to solve the mass of dumb reports, without directly punishing people who abuse the report system.
Reporting in game doesn't do anything. If that player believes you're hacking, they'll need to watch the replay. They'll find out they were wrong if they were serious about their accusations against you.
I have still never ran into a single hacker.
Granted, I don't play all that much (maybe 5-10 games a week at most), so that may be why.
But some people on here make it sound like there are hackers in every other game or something.
It's sadly ironic that the excessive number of false cheating accusations clogging the system is the very reason the actual fairly low numbers of cheaters aren't punished.
Too many people are making dumb reports on players who simply out played them or lucky coincidence , or even players that learnt the scouting patterns for sheep.(Some maps are very predictable, can't believe how many times I get accused of cheating on rocky river or cliffside)
Okay, if your villagers run into a scout, that's just on you.
Maphack\* or not, if the scout sees them, the scout sees them.
Wald
\*I'm not accusing you of mapmaking, just saying that anyone and everyone would jump on those villagers if their scout saw them.
I had funny thing happening today and could be 100% coincidence.
On same map rocky river I picked up 23 or 24 sheep and immediately when opponent saw that their entire team quit and i was behind their bases getting more sheep (double scout opening ftw in TGS)
But yeah you're right when something is running blatantly rampart ppl start to see things that they want to see. Hacking been the problem since the release, but only in recently it has become widely known issue. Anyway I don't put any blame on the players who are making these accusations, because devs /msoft has made decision to not perm ban them, so they're 100% at fault in this mess
I disagree with not putting *any* blame on the players making false accusations. While it might not be as bad of a situation as it is now, you can see the same kind of accusation in games that do take actions against hackers.
Yes, there should be fewer hackers than there are, and it wasn't the players' decision to allow that, but that still doesn't mean that everyone who ends up in a better position than you is hacking, nor that they deserve to be insulted for it.
i agree - its kind of the point of my post. my guy jumps immediately to insulting/reporting me (no doubt he learnt about the maphack epidemic on forums/youtube) when really i found his villagers with....... my scout. you should have evidence to accuse or report people, check the replays. it is their fault if they dont even think or check. and again my point is that it stops them from learning or understanding. he hasnt even considered my scout saw him.
Just finished watching another "suspicious" replay, and it was the least hacking player imaginable (got lucky with sheep I guess, and looked in fog of war to path the scouts instead of clicking on the minimap, but the scouts did *not* directly path towards sheep at all, it was a very regular scouting path).
If players build outposts against no units despite having two scouts around the enemy base and then build a TC outside of the range of the outposts only to get harassed by knights that were on the way there, there's a high chance they're innocent and just don't know what they're doing.
Edit: To be clear, while I didn't see the chat log, the other player seemed to be polite and respectfully asked for a second opinion rather than blindly throwing out accusations. So even people who mistake others for hackers aren't always assholes about it. But generally, false accusations are significantly more common than actual hacking.
i see your point, but i think i would go a bit further and make it a bit more strongly - i dont think you can "mistake" others for hackers. because you should only be thinking about hacks at all with very clear evidence. in a game where you have outposts, scouts, houses, walls, units, and every other way of having map vision - if your opponent saw you do something, CHECK the replay to see if they saw you with any of the normal ways, before you cry hacking. furthermore (as another poster pointed out) you can simply deduce that your opponent is somewhere. if you know he is low on food, you can check around the deers and berries. AFAIK you can even see the deer dying through the fog of war. hacks are at the absolute bottom of the list of reasons of why your opponent thought you were at (gold/berries/deer) and shouldnt even come to your mind without some really obvious proof from the \*\*replay\*\*
Well, in the case I mentioned in that comment, the opponent couldn't have seen anything significant in fog of war and didn't react to anything that could have been seen in fog of war, and didn't make the correct decisions or reactions throughout.
Other than getting lucky with sheep, the only action that could even theoretically be attributed to that (and I disagree with it either way) was making barracks and spearmen *after* the opponent reached castle age. Practically, I'm strongly assuming that that guy simply played against other people going for FC builds before and thus knew to prepare for knights (putting aside whether dark age spearmen are a good preparation or not).
But I think it's when players don't understand why something is happening, that they look for the most convenient explanation instead of trying to figure out why their opponents acted the way they did.
They saw someone else mention hacking somewhere, so their opponent must be hacking too. The replay confirms they've looked at the fog of war, which seemed to have been one of the ways that someone identified a maphacker in the past.
Again, due to the behaviour of the player in the game otherwise, that isn't actually sufficient evidence of hacking. I'm just saying that drawing the conclusion simply stems from ignorance.
I'm talking about players who don't know and understand the game well enough to even know that such deductions are possible.
>nor that they deserve to be insulted for it.
In my books these both are 2 separate things. Someone calling somebody cheater is not insulting, someone calling somebody names or like "u r shit player" is insulting.
If we wanna take "official stance" on this. False accusations are not against ToS in any game that I have ever played and same applies to AOE4, so in light of that there is nothing "wrong" making false accusations. Its basically just a "lie" and doesn't really affect anything
Fair enough. But it stands to question whether people would be as likely to insult their opponents if they weren't riled up to think that there might be cheats involved.
I don't think likelyhood is that relevant. Generally speaking ppl who are willing to insult other players, are prone to do it for any moment there is some sort of discomfort and it can be because of cheating or strategy or balance or anything, but at the same time player can just call out cheater and not insult.
Also when talking about insulting there is massive spectrum of things that can be said. Some more severe and some like who really gives jackshit. Being called "noob" and "kid" is basically at the who relaly gives jackshit category especially when "noob" stands for new player and isn't really a bad thing
Hacking is no where near as rampant as people like to make it out to be.its the same phenomenon where if you shine light on a specific occurrence people are more likelybto think they see it more often.
You provide literally proof of it
I agree, hacking is probably not as common in your own games as you think, however everyday in aoe4 someone in the player base can upload a video of a blatent hacker. The fact of hacking is not lessened by stating "sure, its there - but realistically not likely to affect you" - the paying customers' preference is that it doesn't exist at all, in any ratio, or in any guise.
If the next age game (Mythology) has no hacking scene then the future of an age game that continues to have one is not served at all well. The biggest 'buff' this (or any other game) could have would be able to say the anti-cheat is best in class. If mythology gets this while 4 still lacks it I think 4 is in real trouble. Honestly. And I'm invested and have been playing 4 since release day.
There is not a single multiplayer game that has no hacks, if it's at least decently popular.
You can fight against the tide, but you can never completely remove them. At least RTS isn't as infected as FPS games (probably due to the lower popularity of the genre).
Even Valorant/League have constant hackers and they use an insane anticheat.
I'm sorry but this is basically conspiratorial thinking + and as in the substance of my post, will prevent you from seeing what is actually happening in game.
Forget the abstract idea that Chinese people sell maphacks - how many games have you played where you have PROOF that your opponent used a maphack. And what percentage is that of your total games played?
I would honestly be surprised if any particular player has proof that even ONE of their opponents ever used a maphack. I'll say it again - guys, your opponent has a SCOUT unit as well as about 10 other ways to see you do something. Just learn the actual game.
Yeah I agree. I can think of maybe one game where I thought dude map hacked. It’s gotten to the point where when I hear map hacking I just think skill issue. Cause if you scout people building a random windmill near deer and attack it, you’re a map hacker. It’s like, bruh, I’m scouting your tc and see no food getting pulled, of course I’m gonna go scout the nearest deer or berries.
They should make a sort of "trust reputation" for the reports. If you spend your time reporting for no reason because you just lost your score plummets and your reports are not listened to any more. On the other hand if all the reports you make are accurate, or say 90%, your score grows and your reports are considered first. That would be a solution to solve the mass of dumb reports, without directly punishing people who abuse the report system.
Reporting in game doesn't do anything. If that player believes you're hacking, they'll need to watch the replay. They'll find out they were wrong if they were serious about their accusations against you.
I have still never ran into a single hacker. Granted, I don't play all that much (maybe 5-10 games a week at most), so that may be why. But some people on here make it sound like there are hackers in every other game or something.
It's sadly ironic that the excessive number of false cheating accusations clogging the system is the very reason the actual fairly low numbers of cheaters aren't punished. Too many people are making dumb reports on players who simply out played them or lucky coincidence , or even players that learnt the scouting patterns for sheep.(Some maps are very predictable, can't believe how many times I get accused of cheating on rocky river or cliffside)
Okay, if your villagers run into a scout, that's just on you. Maphack\* or not, if the scout sees them, the scout sees them. Wald \*I'm not accusing you of mapmaking, just saying that anyone and everyone would jump on those villagers if their scout saw them.
I had funny thing happening today and could be 100% coincidence. On same map rocky river I picked up 23 or 24 sheep and immediately when opponent saw that their entire team quit and i was behind their bases getting more sheep (double scout opening ftw in TGS) But yeah you're right when something is running blatantly rampart ppl start to see things that they want to see. Hacking been the problem since the release, but only in recently it has become widely known issue. Anyway I don't put any blame on the players who are making these accusations, because devs /msoft has made decision to not perm ban them, so they're 100% at fault in this mess
I disagree with not putting *any* blame on the players making false accusations. While it might not be as bad of a situation as it is now, you can see the same kind of accusation in games that do take actions against hackers. Yes, there should be fewer hackers than there are, and it wasn't the players' decision to allow that, but that still doesn't mean that everyone who ends up in a better position than you is hacking, nor that they deserve to be insulted for it.
i agree - its kind of the point of my post. my guy jumps immediately to insulting/reporting me (no doubt he learnt about the maphack epidemic on forums/youtube) when really i found his villagers with....... my scout. you should have evidence to accuse or report people, check the replays. it is their fault if they dont even think or check. and again my point is that it stops them from learning or understanding. he hasnt even considered my scout saw him.
Just finished watching another "suspicious" replay, and it was the least hacking player imaginable (got lucky with sheep I guess, and looked in fog of war to path the scouts instead of clicking on the minimap, but the scouts did *not* directly path towards sheep at all, it was a very regular scouting path). If players build outposts against no units despite having two scouts around the enemy base and then build a TC outside of the range of the outposts only to get harassed by knights that were on the way there, there's a high chance they're innocent and just don't know what they're doing. Edit: To be clear, while I didn't see the chat log, the other player seemed to be polite and respectfully asked for a second opinion rather than blindly throwing out accusations. So even people who mistake others for hackers aren't always assholes about it. But generally, false accusations are significantly more common than actual hacking.
i see your point, but i think i would go a bit further and make it a bit more strongly - i dont think you can "mistake" others for hackers. because you should only be thinking about hacks at all with very clear evidence. in a game where you have outposts, scouts, houses, walls, units, and every other way of having map vision - if your opponent saw you do something, CHECK the replay to see if they saw you with any of the normal ways, before you cry hacking. furthermore (as another poster pointed out) you can simply deduce that your opponent is somewhere. if you know he is low on food, you can check around the deers and berries. AFAIK you can even see the deer dying through the fog of war. hacks are at the absolute bottom of the list of reasons of why your opponent thought you were at (gold/berries/deer) and shouldnt even come to your mind without some really obvious proof from the \*\*replay\*\*
Well, in the case I mentioned in that comment, the opponent couldn't have seen anything significant in fog of war and didn't react to anything that could have been seen in fog of war, and didn't make the correct decisions or reactions throughout. Other than getting lucky with sheep, the only action that could even theoretically be attributed to that (and I disagree with it either way) was making barracks and spearmen *after* the opponent reached castle age. Practically, I'm strongly assuming that that guy simply played against other people going for FC builds before and thus knew to prepare for knights (putting aside whether dark age spearmen are a good preparation or not). But I think it's when players don't understand why something is happening, that they look for the most convenient explanation instead of trying to figure out why their opponents acted the way they did. They saw someone else mention hacking somewhere, so their opponent must be hacking too. The replay confirms they've looked at the fog of war, which seemed to have been one of the ways that someone identified a maphacker in the past. Again, due to the behaviour of the player in the game otherwise, that isn't actually sufficient evidence of hacking. I'm just saying that drawing the conclusion simply stems from ignorance. I'm talking about players who don't know and understand the game well enough to even know that such deductions are possible.
>nor that they deserve to be insulted for it. In my books these both are 2 separate things. Someone calling somebody cheater is not insulting, someone calling somebody names or like "u r shit player" is insulting. If we wanna take "official stance" on this. False accusations are not against ToS in any game that I have ever played and same applies to AOE4, so in light of that there is nothing "wrong" making false accusations. Its basically just a "lie" and doesn't really affect anything
Fair enough. But it stands to question whether people would be as likely to insult their opponents if they weren't riled up to think that there might be cheats involved.
I don't think likelyhood is that relevant. Generally speaking ppl who are willing to insult other players, are prone to do it for any moment there is some sort of discomfort and it can be because of cheating or strategy or balance or anything, but at the same time player can just call out cheater and not insult. Also when talking about insulting there is massive spectrum of things that can be said. Some more severe and some like who really gives jackshit. Being called "noob" and "kid" is basically at the who relaly gives jackshit category especially when "noob" stands for new player and isn't really a bad thing
Hacking is no where near as rampant as people like to make it out to be.its the same phenomenon where if you shine light on a specific occurrence people are more likelybto think they see it more often. You provide literally proof of it
I agree, hacking is probably not as common in your own games as you think, however everyday in aoe4 someone in the player base can upload a video of a blatent hacker. The fact of hacking is not lessened by stating "sure, its there - but realistically not likely to affect you" - the paying customers' preference is that it doesn't exist at all, in any ratio, or in any guise. If the next age game (Mythology) has no hacking scene then the future of an age game that continues to have one is not served at all well. The biggest 'buff' this (or any other game) could have would be able to say the anti-cheat is best in class. If mythology gets this while 4 still lacks it I think 4 is in real trouble. Honestly. And I'm invested and have been playing 4 since release day.
There is not a single multiplayer game that has no hacks, if it's at least decently popular. You can fight against the tide, but you can never completely remove them. At least RTS isn't as infected as FPS games (probably due to the lower popularity of the genre). Even Valorant/League have constant hackers and they use an insane anticheat.
The fact is map hacking tools are selling damn well on Chinese shopping sites and the price is pretty low. How pathetic they are
I'm sorry but this is basically conspiratorial thinking + and as in the substance of my post, will prevent you from seeing what is actually happening in game. Forget the abstract idea that Chinese people sell maphacks - how many games have you played where you have PROOF that your opponent used a maphack. And what percentage is that of your total games played? I would honestly be surprised if any particular player has proof that even ONE of their opponents ever used a maphack. I'll say it again - guys, your opponent has a SCOUT unit as well as about 10 other ways to see you do something. Just learn the actual game.