<!--quoteo(post=1684388:date=Jul 24 2008, 04:55 PM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Jul 24 2008, 04:55 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1684388"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm no expert on punkbuster, but here are a few:
First, punkbuster is incredibly invasive - perhaps moreso than the Warden. Such features are:
- Scans hardware and assigns bans based on it. - Scans all processes launched after game execution <b>and sends them to the server</b>. - Scans graphics libraries and other game-critical files (not so bad by itself) - Scans <b>entire contents of memory</b>
Punkbuster also contributes to system instability for many users in mild to moderate form:
- Updates in the background causing latency and processor usage - Creates an additional layer between the client and server, potentially causing fps and ping spikes. Can randomly drop clients due to minor connection problems that would otherwise not drop the player. - Due to a failure in the detection system, running any other program (such as antivirus) while playing has the potential to create a hardware ban against all servers in all games that run punkbuster. The proposed solution is to disable all background processes. - Punkbuster has a history of problems with 64 bit systems, such as completely locking players out of servers if they run on a 64 bit platform. - Punkbuster has a history of problems allowing user-level accounts from connecting to servers, and requires an additional process to run plus the pb client, and in some cases may still block users from connecting, depending on what game they're playing.
The EULA even states that Even Balance has final say in banning a client, not the server operator. If you get onto one of their global lists, it can be impossible to get removed, and can require a full re-purchase of the game.
I'm one of the most legit players I know, and an implementation of a system this invasive would make me want to crack it, which could result in my being permanently banned from NS2.
The system is far too obtrusive for a simple internet game. Its implementation, despite how much I like NS2, and despite the fact that I would likely still play it, would actually cause me to hesitate to purchase the game. Again, I'm no expert.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First off let me say that I have had none of the "issues" that you describe above, and I play a moderate amount of BF games in both Vista x64 and XP SP2 x64. The reason that PB now sits in memory is to provide a higher level of security. For those gamers (like myself) that do not run their systems with elevated privileges, having PB run as a service removes the need to execute a game as admin.
As far as invasiveness, does it not make sense that if you want to stop cheating you have to be able to be somewhat invasive? It does not take a genius to see that if you limit where PB can go you automatically create a safe haven for cheats.
You have to choose between effective anti-cheating measures and useless anti-cheating measures. If they cannot be effective then there is no point in including them at all.
VAC2 is far from useless, the problem is that the games which rely on it for anti-cheat support are VERY popular. Hence, larger community = larger hack-making community = a <b>lot</b> more VAC2-proof cheats. Seriously, it's so easy to get VAC-proof cheats for CS/CSS/TF2 it isn't even funny.
As an ex-hacker I have to say no matter what system you use there will ALWAYS be hackers. The only way to reduce them is have both a Delayed Banning system, Delay by about a week to a month and an ever evolving anti-cheat. Though the Delayed ban system is usually more than enough because coders can't just brute force and test. To find out if it really works they have to wait a week to a month. This usually prevents users from using hacks too because they never know if they are going to be banned imediately or not. reporting is delayed by a week or two. Though. the delayed banning system has its work arounds. It depends on how the user is reported hacking. If it is a yes no confirmation to the user run server. Or if the computer data is sent to a seperate Anti-Cheat server that decides if it is cheating or not. If the first is choosen then all a hacker has to do is set up a server and packet sniff. If the second is done well that is just harder for the Anti-Cheat programmers and managers as they have to run a seperate server just to scan user logs.
Comments
First, punkbuster is incredibly invasive - perhaps moreso than the Warden. Such features are:
- Scans hardware and assigns bans based on it.
- Scans all processes launched after game execution <b>and sends them to the server</b>.
- Scans graphics libraries and other game-critical files (not so bad by itself)
- Scans <b>entire contents of memory</b>
Punkbuster also contributes to system instability for many users in mild to moderate form:
- Updates in the background causing latency and processor usage
- Creates an additional layer between the client and server, potentially causing fps and ping spikes. Can randomly drop clients due to minor connection problems that would otherwise not drop the player.
- Due to a failure in the detection system, running any other program (such as antivirus) while playing has the potential to create a hardware ban against all servers in all games that run punkbuster. The proposed solution is to disable all background processes.
- Punkbuster has a history of problems with 64 bit systems, such as completely locking players out of servers if they run on a 64 bit platform.
- Punkbuster has a history of problems allowing user-level accounts from connecting to servers, and requires an additional process to run plus the pb client, and in some cases may still block users from connecting, depending on what game they're playing.
The EULA even states that Even Balance has final say in banning a client, not the server operator. If you get onto one of their global lists, it can be impossible to get removed, and can require a full re-purchase of the game.
I'm one of the most legit players I know, and an implementation of a system this invasive would make me want to crack it, which could result in my being permanently banned from NS2.
The system is far too obtrusive for a simple internet game. Its implementation, despite how much I like NS2, and despite the fact that I would likely still play it, would actually cause me to hesitate to purchase the game.
Again, I'm no expert.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First off let me say that I have had none of the "issues" that you describe above, and I play a moderate amount of BF games in both Vista x64 and XP SP2 x64. The reason that PB now sits in memory is to provide a higher level of security. For those gamers (like myself) that do not run their systems with elevated privileges, having PB run as a service removes the need to execute a game as admin.
As far as invasiveness, does it not make sense that if you want to stop cheating you have to be able to be somewhat invasive? It does not take a genius to see that if you limit where PB can go you automatically create a safe haven for cheats.
You have to choose between effective anti-cheating measures and useless anti-cheating measures. If they cannot be effective then there is no point in including them at all.
The only way to reduce them is have both a Delayed Banning system, Delay by about a week to a month and an ever evolving anti-cheat. Though the Delayed ban system is usually more than enough because coders can't just brute force and test. To find out if it really works they have to wait a week to a month. This usually prevents users from using hacks too because they never know if they are going to be banned imediately or not. reporting is delayed by a week or two. Though. the delayed banning system has its work arounds. It depends on how the user is reported hacking. If it is a yes no confirmation to the user run server. Or if the computer data is sent to a seperate Anti-Cheat server that decides if it is cheating or not. If the first is choosen then all a hacker has to do is set up a server and packet sniff. If the second is done well that is just harder for the Anti-Cheat programmers and managers as they have to run a seperate server just to scan user logs.