Singh400

As in PBSSes that are on my machine, and I select "From your computer" on http://account.pbbans.com/pbss.php.

Bumpty bump. Can the same be done for PBSSes that are submitted locally? Thanks!

"Netcode" can't be fixed as long as they are using a client-side hit-detection model. I long for the days of server-side hit-detection models (i.e. ET:QW).

Local bans do not get pushed to PBBans. Or players that trigger a PunkBuster violation get pushed to PBBans. So, no.

Ah I see, then (blank) is fine by me. Cheers mate!

Well the alias doesn't really matter, only thing that really matters is the PB_GUID right? I don't know what the internal API is of PBBans, but we can already extract the PB_GUID with ease. So performing a search with PB_GUID should be easy enough, and then if result set comes back with > 1 just grab the last modified/last streamed? Alternatively, just deprecate the need for alias? Edit* (blank) is fine too. Whatever works, just it bugs me that the system specifically asks for it when not present in the PBSS and then ignores it anyway xD

I just submitted this PBSS and as you can see the player name isn't listed on the PBSS, which happens sometime. However, during the submission process the system refuses to accept the submission without an alias listed in the respective text box. Why can't the system just grab the PB_GUID from the PBSS and perform an internal lookup? At the moment all I do is just search the MPI for the PB_GUID myself and paste the alias across. The PBSS is then accepted, but the alias isn't displayed at the end (see screenshot) so what was the point of me adding the alias manually?

Happy New Year to all, hope 2014 is a great one! :)

I think the frustrations stems more from the fact that it looks like DICE learnt absolutely nothing from the launch chaos of BF3. If anything, you could even say things are worse than the BF3 launch.

Pretty much the same except for:- Storage: 1x750GB (Samsung), 2x500GB (Seagate) & 1x256GB SSD (Samsung SSD 840 Pro Series) Headset: SteelSeries 5Hv2 USB - won these in a ESL match ages ago. Downgraded from my Corsair HS1-USB pair because I broke them :( Corsair sent me an updated model for free, but I'm waiting till I break my SteelSeries pair now...

These kind of mistakes should not be happening. Especially with BF4. BF3 can be seen as a practice run for all intents and purposes. You really would have thought that they would have learnt some serious lessons from BF3. But apparently not. That being said, I'm glad to see they are halting future DLCs until they sort out core issues within the base game.

Literally no one is surprised.

It's better than nothing...and overall it would be a marked increased say from IE6. No year on year release for any browser sees a massive improvement in speed.

... B)

It may be that you need to lower the security settings on the installed version of Java. Check in your control panel.

I'm assuming as long as your application was approved, the lite streaming approval will be in holding until one of the staff members approve it. Just hang tight, normally very quick round here.

Yes, it's a manual way to setup streaming.

http://www.pbbans.com/master-config-index.html --> Select your game --> Click View PBSV.

No, both are clean. The former is just a normal standard PBSS, looks like the enemy is just around the corner. The latter looks like to be a new transition effect in BF4.

203.46.105.23:21500 now shows up, but it is showing as "Server Hub connection is deactivated". 203.46.105.23:20250 shows up, but as "Server is not streaming to PBBans". Both have different descriptions though..?

Have you added the correct server IP and port to your AccCP? It's the exact same server IP and port listed on the server page in Battlelog. Is this your server? If so, just copy and paste 203.46.105.23:21500 into your AccCP. Edit* Spelling.

It needs to be the join port that you see on Battelog: http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf4/servers/show/pc/93b439d5-9178-400c-8c55-06e26485f7e2/ Change 31.204.131.51:25515 to 31.204.131.51:25510.

I'm sure it's this one.

It's always been a cat and mouse game for cheat developers and anti cheat developers. It's a endless cycle of one upping. They [the cheat developers] find new ways to circumvent detection, and then they [the anti cheat developers] find new ways to detect the circumventions. Repeat ad infinitum. That's why you often see a "lag" of detections. I'd wager it's virtually impossible to detect and ban any cheat instantly. And even if you could do that, wouldn't you rather ban a whole group of cheaters at once instead of just banning one cheater? Banning the one cheater, would alert the cheat developers, whereas a surprise mass banning is a little more damaging to them.

Are you sure it isn't the terrible net code?