Should UO Use PunkBuster to Stop Cheats?

[Cear Dallben Dragon]

Hey, its 2006 all over again. I am totally farming blackrock.

................................................

 

[Cloak&Dagger]

Don't care to vote tho I am honestly all for it. Now of course PB is a "viable" option because the games that use it say it is, not because its actually "working". Honestly considering the kind of community that cheats on UO it would only MAYBE cut the cheating down by half, which by the way in my opinion is not a very "viable", EA could just as simply send everyone who cheats a warning email and next time they cheat ban them, I am just about 100% sure they can check who cheats, or they could just ban them on the spot (first option was for the sake of trying to "keep" the subscribers who were cheating). Whatever they decide to do would be fine. To who ever posted about icqs EULA they are warning you against outside threats they are not stating that they are scanning your computer at all, they also do not say they retain the right to scan your entire computer and anything connected to it (I.E. devices) anyway now that I spent the time to post I guess I could vote, except there is no option for impartial people. As I do not care either way.

 

[Harb]

UO should put an immediate halt to cheating, it's long, long overdue - and is likely the top priority for the game. If punkbuster or a derivative is the only way to do so, then sobeit. I don't know enough about computing/ programming to form a valid opinion on techniques/ requirements/ limitations, so for me it boils down to a trust and confidence issue between a provider/ developer and a consumer/ player. I find their explanation acceptable, but like many, do have lingering concerns. I use one of our computers for work/ play and both personal/ business finance, therefore I don't have a warm/ fuzzy about anything poking around on that machine. But still, I have faith in our team, so if they assure me it's "all good," put me in the hesitant supporter category.

 

[Connor_Graham]

Yes, we need an anti-cheat program, and to hell with the cheaters. Most of the ones doing the scripting for resources don't pay for the accounts anyway, so there wouldn't be any loss.

 

[Lord Sir Scott]

You do all understand the OP is getting refering to a FAQ from about 6-7 years ago right?
If i recall PB was intagrated into UO at that time. it was tested and found to be un able to do the job due to complex issues in regards to Personal data and incompatabliltes...

UO is too Complex for PB was the outcome...

 

[Harb]

5.5 Consent to Monitor. DURING ITS OPERATION, THE GAME MAY MONITOR YOUR COMPUTER'S RANDOM ACCESS MEMORY (RAM) FOR UNAUTHORIZED THIRD PARTY PROGRAMS RUNNING CONCURRENTLY WITH THE GAME. AN "UNAUTHORIZED THIRD PARTY PROGRAM" AS USED HEREIN SHALL BE DEFINED AS ANY THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION ANY "ADDON", "MOD", "HACK", "TRAINER", OR "CHEAT" THAT IN EA'S SOLE DETERMINATION: (I) ENABLES OR FACILITATES CHEATING OF ANY TYPE: (II) ALLOWS USERS TO MODIFY OR HACK THE GAME INTERFACE, ENVIRONMENT, AND /OR EXPERIENCE IN ANY WAY NOT EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED BY EA: OR (III) INTERCEPTS, "MINES", OR OTHERWISE COLLECTS INFORMATION FROM OR THROUGH THE GAME. IN THE EVENT THAT THE GAME DETECTS AN UNAUTHORIZED THIRD PARTY PROGRAM, THE GAME MAY (A) COMMUNICATE INFORMATION BACK TO EA, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION YOUR ACCOUNT NAME, DETAILS ABOUT THE UNAUTHORIZED THIRD PARTY PROGRAM DETECTED, AND THE TIME AND DATE THE UNAUTHORIZED THIRD PARTY PROGRAM WAS DETECTED; AND /OR (B) EA MAY EXERCISE ANY OR ALL OF ITS RIGHTS UNDER THIS AGREEMENT, WITH OR WITHOUT PRIOR NOTICE TO THE USER.

Oh my. Perhaps Punkbuster is integrated into the new Stygian Abyss client. That would be why such a clause would be necessary.

This is acceptable to me. Thank you yet again JC!

I did a google search for 'punkbuster eula'. I found it here
Here's the bits I have a problem with

Licensee understands and agrees that the information that may be inspected and reported by PunkBuster software includes, but is not limited to, devices and any files residing on the hard-drive and in the memory of the computer on which PunkBuster software is installed. Further, Licensee consents to allow PunkBuster software to transfer actual screenshots taken of Licensee’s computer during the operation of PunkBuster software for possible publication. Licensee understands that the purpose and goal of PunkBuster is to ensure a cheat-free environment for all participants in online games. Licensee agrees that the invasive nature of PunkBuster software is necessary to meet this purpose and goal. Licensee agrees that any harm or lack of privacy resulting from the installation and use of PunkBuster software is not as valuable to Licensee as the potential ability to play interactive online games with the benefits afforded by using PunkBuster software.

This I have problems with as well, thank you Petra.

 

[Maplestone]

I waffle back and forth on the subject from month to month, year to year. I like the principle that my computer is mine and someone else monitoring what goes on inside it to check up on me just rubs me the wrong way.

But it's a blurry line - by allowing UO to install files on my computer whenever a patch is released, I've already crossed a line that would let them muddle with it if they were malicious (or careless). I do like to keep the number of companies I allow to do that to a minimum though, so I feel better about it being EA directly running scanning (and thus accepting my blame if something blows up or is misused) than adding another company to the mix that would have less to lose by annoying me.

I'm neither a yes nor a no at the moment ... I'm in a grudging "I don't like it, but I wouldn't fight it" camp.

 

[the 4th man]

You can be hired by some of the UO brokers and collect $200 per week while playing/scripting on three accounts...

http://www.uoforums.com/uo-chesapea...uth-and-nothing-but-the-truth-so-help-me.html

"Heck with PB if it ruins my income!"


Enjoy UO.

I wouldn't call some pud, sitting in a basement or hiding in his bedroom, a broker ok?? Don't glorify the gimps, also, $200.00 a week is pocket change.....

If punkbuster is such an intrusion, then quit and get a life. If not, get a 2nd hand computer and play UO on it, if you have to play so bad.

I'm a vet, I used to be addicted, but got weened off UO due to real life circumstances, and no longer suffer from carpal tunnel or weight issues, and it's off shoot illnesses.

I don't see EA doing a thing about this whole issue because they are EA.
It's all about the bottom line with EA-$$$$$$$, if it were different, they would have done something by now.

Last, but not least, stratics isn't the place to get EA to do something. Corporate office, that's where the decisions are made.

You have a better chance at sueing them for breach of contract, than you do getting results here.

later, and good luck.

 

[Gellor]

So the only reply to people voting no is "you must be cheating" and avoid ANY actual content(hmmm... post padding in other words). How original:loser:

Let me guess, anyone who likes to use the old 2d client MUST be a cheater too?

If SA actually has something that does anything about cheating, then EA is going a step in the right direction. OTOH, last I had heard, the unmentionable program only works with the old 2d client and there were few if any "cheats" that worked with any of the new clients.

I don't cheat and I do think cheaters need to be handled. But in no way do I feel Punkbuster is "THE" solution or even a step in the right direction.

So with this in mind, the "ultimate" solution is to make a new client. The problem is there are WAY to many people who like the look and feel of the old 2d client(the perspective, the layout, etc) While I haven't seen SA, all the other attempts at new clients failed to maintain the 2d "feel"... thus they couldn't get most players to use it.

EA is too late in the game to worry about cheaters. When it would have made a difference, they were unable to solve the issue. And now that the population is small and any significant loss of accounts means the loss of UO, they won't do anything.

What would be real informative is to send a questionnaire to see why people quit UO to begin with... not just the rabid guys on stratics. I would be very surprised to see more than 10% quit over cheating. I would likewise be very unsurprised to see a majority quit over bug issues that EA introduced and fix in an untimely manner.

 

[JC the Builder]

A significant portion of the people who are against punkbuster are quite frankly people who cheat in UO to make $$

While there is some of that, I suspect there is also another group who have little computer knowledge and when they hear "scan your system" they are all up in arms. Some people still think that Punkbuster is going to go through all their files and send back credit card and baby photos for EvenBalance's evil use. When in actuality all Punkbuster reports is if a cheat is being used and perhaps the cheat type/name. These same people blindly download files containing viruses/trojans/spyware which do actually steal your information and are the most likely to get their game accounts hacked into.

That just gave me an idea. Punkbuster could also be updated to scan for keyloggers/trojans which steal your account information and could warn you when one is running.

Anyway, I've posted this in virtually every Punkbuster topic that I respond to: If EvenBalance ever once stepped over the privacy line, Punkbuster would likely be ripped out of games so fast it would make your head spin. Their company could go out of business in a month. Their not going to do that.

 

[GarthGrey]

They wont do it. They would lose to much $$ for banning accts

Sadly, this is the unspoken truth...

 

[GarthGrey]

I"ll go on record and say, in my opinion, that anyone that says NO, to this is afraid of getting caught cheating...deny it all you want, throw out your Urban Legends about personal info and getting hacked, and my friend used that and blah blah blah...just stay out of the thread, don't vote and don't give your opinion, because anyone with even a shred of common sense isn't buying it...

If Punkbuster can put an end to cheating, and if it isn't as easy to get around it as renaming your .exe's, then I"m all for it. But if players can get around it and still cheat, then don't waste yours or our time by implementing it..

And any one that's been posting on Stratics for at least 6 months, knows exactly which posters will respond to my post in defense...so don't bother...it only makes you look worse...

 

[Whinemaker]

Well the FAQ did say they would open up at least one non-PB server, so if you're not down with it you could move and play over there.

I wonder in the end how many people would give in and choose to stay on a PB server to save their pixel cracks rather than their so called privacy though.

 

[UOKaiser]

Well the FAQ did say they would open up at least one non-PB server, so if you're not down with it you could move and play over there.

I wonder in the end how many people would give in and choose to stay on a PB server to save their pixel cracks rather than their so called privacy though.

Thats a old faq chances UO ever open another server will be very unlikly.
You can pretty much put the percentage at least half the UO population that would move there.
Side note this from a website=Our COD4 Cheats are now updated to support and work on patch v1.6! All of our Call of Duty 4 Cheats are UNDETECTED by PunkBuster. You can get our commercial quality cheats by visiting out website at
and many such sites like it for every punkbuster game that I can see. And most fps games are updated while UO is 11 years old client with some modifications. Once again useless for UO and detrimental.
Oh well am out of here ready to go celebrate!!!

 

[popps]

If you dont run illegal programs you dont need to worry about anything. Very, Very few false positives. They keep logs. If its false it can be overturned.

UOAssist is currently the only approved program, right ?

UOAutomap which many use and is very usefull in UO would no longer be usable ?

 

[Diomedes Artega]

While there is some of that, I suspect there is also another group who have little computer knowledge and when they hear "scan your system" they are all up in arms. Some people still think that Punkbuster is going to go through all their files and send back credit card and baby photos for EvenBalance's evil use. When in actuality all Punkbuster reports is if a cheat is being used and perhaps the cheat type/name. These same people blindly download files containing viruses/trojans/spyware which do actually steal your information and are the most likely to get their game accounts hacked into.

That just gave me an idea. Punkbuster could also be updated to scan for keyloggers/trojans which steal your account information and could warn you when one is running.

Anyway, I've posted this in virtually every Punkbuster topic that I respond to: If EvenBalance ever once stepped over the privacy line, Punkbuster would likely be ripped out of games so fast it would make your head spin. Their company could go out of business in a month. Their not going to do that.

Have to say all valid points. A percentage of people that are most fearful are the ones that have the least amount of computer knowledge and yes...would do some of the same things that would get their bank account information compromised and what have you.

PunkBuster, Gamegard and other technologies aren't using this knowledge for their own personal gains because basically...as you have stated. Their companies would get slapped with lawsuits and put out of business.

Frankly if you think PunkBuster is bad...you know little. In South Korea, there is little in the way of privacy matters. When you go to a computer cafe to play Lineage II, keylogging technology is used with GameGuard to keep that type of hacking from occuring.

You can at least feel good that every keystroke you're hitting isn't being detected...AND monitored.

 

[Ender]

UOAssist is currently the only approved program, right ?

UOAutomap which many use and is very usefull in UO would no longer be usable ?

There's a list of approved programs on UO.com somewhere. UOAM is one of them.



And for the record, I agree with those saying that the only people saying no are cheaters. There are no legitimate privacy concerns. Take off your damn tin foil hats already.

 

[Whinemaker]

You can pretty much put the percentage at least half the UO population that would move there.

That's some generous speculation on your part.

Anyway, what would you do if EA did decide to implement PB with SA? Would you quit?

 

[Belanos/Icicle]

you people do realize that any serious consideration of PunkBuster's use in UO ended years ago, right?
that FAQ link is dated Monday, June 19, 2006 7:58:39 PM, as the most recent update to it.

 

[JC the Builder]

you people do realize that any serious consideration of PunkBuster's use in UO ended years ago, right?
that FAQ link is dated Monday, June 19, 2006 7:58:39 PM, as the most recent update to it.

We don't know if it is being considered, has been killed or is perhaps already in the new Stygian Abyss client. What we do know is:

- Punkbuster is installed in EA's latest MMO, Warhammer Online.
- The Stygian Abyss Beta Agreement contains a clause which makes it sound like Punkbuster or something similar is in the client already.
- Punkbuster is perhaps already in the 2D client, it just has never been activated. There is a Punkbuster image which can be viewed with InsideUO and is mentioned in localization files.

 

[phantus]

We don't know if it is being considered, has been killed or is perhaps already in the new Stygian Abyss client.

Even if it is it would be worthless without them actually making content for the SA client only. They have figured out they can't make a whole expansion SA client only(with good reason) but they need to start making SA only content if they want it be effective.

and before anyone bothers to post that cheats exist in the 3D(SA) client, don't bother. The 2d client has so many easy holes it's not even funny. They simply aren't as easy to find in new clients and the information available on the 2D client is immense and makes it easier to create and build cheats for it. It would have an effect on cheating regardless of all the bullcrap people spew about it on these boards.

and yes, they should add PB. 3 years ago....

 

[It Lives]

Oh yes do it!

SHuunn ShuUUUuuuNNN the Cheaters! In the long run it will better for uo, company wise and player wise.

There will always be dirtballs out there fouling up the works, least we can do is get rid of the wanna be turds.

 

[JC the Builder]

Even if it is it would be worthless without them actually making content for the SA client only. They have figured out they can't make a whole expansion SA client only(with good reason) but they need to start making SA only content if they want it be effective.

I believe the opposite actually. By giving players a choice between Stygian Abyss with Punkbuster and 2D without, they can gauge player acceptance. If enough players switch to Stygian Abyss and embrace Punkbuster, then they can either activate it in 2D or discontinue 2D altogether. If the opposite happens and players still vehemently oppose it, then it can simple be removed from Stygian Abyss.

and before anyone bothers to post that cheats exist in the 3D(SA) client, don't bother. The 2d client has so many easy holes it's not even funny. They simply aren't as easy to find in new clients and the information available on the 2D client is immense and makes it easier to create and build cheats for it. It would have an effect on cheating regardless of all the bullcrap people spew about it on these boards.

This is an utter fallacy. Darkfall which was released just 2 months ago has so many hacks out for it that it is absolutely mind boggling. Speedhacking so fast you can't even see your opponent, invisibility hacks, moving through solid objects hacks, teleporting anywhere in the world hacks, aimbots, etc.

The 2D client is pretty solid due to it being in operation for so long. Each patch has made it more and more secure. Eight years ago it seemed like a new bug or hack was coming out every week. Now you are lucky to see one every 6 months.

 

[Belanos/Icicle]

I believe the opposite actually. By giving players a choice between Stygian Abyss with Punkbuster and 2D without, they can gauge player acceptance. If enough players switch to Stygian Abyss and embrace Punkbuster, then they can either activate it in 2D or discontinue 2D altogether. If the opposite happens and players still vehemently oppose it, then it can simple be removed from Stygian Abyss.

this wouldn't be a very reliable means of determining PB acceptance. Are they switching to SA because of punkbuster, or in spite of punkbuster? Conversely, does a person staying in 2D want to cheat, or do they just like the legacy client more than SA?

 

[Dor of Sonoma]

A significant portion of the people who are against punkbuster are quite frankly people who cheat in UO to make $$

*snorts*

Yeah...that would definitely be me.

*rolls eyes*

Beware of your casual generalizations, m'dear.

 

[EDA_GL]

100% for either PB or a PB like program to reduce the LEETNESS of some of the ****ty players that think they actually have skill. Think what you want from my post...(love to get rid of cheaters, but newbie to PB)

PB is only activated when I actually open UO/UOA? It doesn't constantly check my system unless I'm logged into UO...right? There was reference to it taking system info and sending it to...somewhere, then its hashed out on whats legal/illegal, then that info is passed on to the EA 'in-game' staff (non-existent BTW) to determine if said player is actually using a ITPP. If it is running only when UO/UOA is up and running, 100% for it.

UOAM, legal as far as I'm aware.
UOA, the only approved 'helper'
Vent/TS/voice chat programs, legal?
IRC, legal?

 

[Cear Dallben Dragon]

This is an utter fallacy. Darkfall which was released just 2 months ago has so many hacks out for it that it is absolutely mind boggling. Speedhacking so fast you can't even see your opponent, invisibility hacks, moving through solid objects hacks, teleporting anywhere in the world hacks, aimbots, etc.

Dont forget the one where you are always standing behind your opponent in battle! I saw a youtube of this. man was it hilarious. no matter how fast you spin around you can never hit the guy.

 

[Belanos/Icicle]

1UOAM, legal as far as I'm aware.
UOA, the only approved 'helper'
Vent/TS/voice chat programs, legal?
IRC, legal?

programs that don't directly interfere with UO are always legal - IRC and Vent for example. UOAM is a legal third party program, but it is no longer being developed. Basically, if it doesn't interact with the UO data stream (like certain script/macro programs or packet pushers) then EA is fine with it. Otherwise, technically illegal unless listed as a UOPro app.

 

[Dor of Sonoma]

...And for the record, I agree with those saying that the only people saying no are cheaters...

Alright, this is really starting to bother me. It displays an attitude that smacks of McCarthyism..."If you don't agree with us, you're obviously guilty!"

It makes me wonder how much cheating really takes place, when some of you are so ready and willing to label even us innocents (who happen to disagree with you) as untrustworthy, lying cheaters.

I would seriously like to see an end to such hysterical, unsubstantiated labeling here. Get a grip!

 

[MoneyMaker]

With so many complaining about cheating, there has to be plenty of non-cheating accts.
If everyone is so afraid that, if the cheater are banned, that there won't be enough subscribers to keep UO going, then you are also a part of the problem.
If you have a neighborhood full of drug pushers, are you gonna call the police and report them? Or are you gonna gripe about it, but not actually do anything about them?
I don't know about anyone else, but I will call the cops on them. True the police are probably not gonna catch them, but they will be on alert. The drug pushers will most likely avoid the neighborhood for a while.
It's just my opinion, take it or leave it.

 

[Magneto2272]

I hope everyone who voted no didn't sign up for the Stygian Abyss beta, which has the same "privacy violating" power than Punkbuster does.



Oh my. Perhaps Punkbuster is integrated into the new Stygian Abyss client. That would be why such a clause would be necessary.

if EA and the development team are in fact waise enough to actually implement PB, it will be the singularity that actually not only saves UO, but will make it THRIVE. you heard it here first.

concurrently, for every individual 'god mode' player currently in-game who we all know have been scripting/cheating for years that leaves the game, there will two more who will return because of it. i personally left uo [as did my friends] because of the unbelievable number of people who cheating. it arrived at a point where i either 'adapted', meaning i had to use scripts to compete again, or retire. i retired. i returned thre emonths ago because i was told SA just may use PB, and i am sincerely joyful to see EA's TOS requirement for the SA Beta.

what took you so long EA?

 

[HD2300]

They wont do it. They would lose to much $$ for banning accts

Sadly, this is the unspoken truth...

It has gone past the point of no return. If EA thought they would make money banning cheaters they would. Everyone knows it. They have done nothing in the past 5 years, except say every 6 months it is a high priority.

In fact it is the opposite. Look at the current reward systems. It is all geared towards enticing scripters to open more accounts.

Even when they do their token 5 account yearly bannings, they will only ban one of a cheaters 30 accounts even when they all use the same credit card.

Look at the poll results. Even if 1/2 of the nays dont want a program which is effectively has the same functionality as an anti-virus program, it still comes out to 22% of the population are cheaters. That's 2.2 million dollars a year EA doesnt intend to lose, and their lack of any action in the last 5 years proves it.

 

[Flora Green]

I voted no largely because I don't care anymore about cheating. And I don't trust EA/Devs to use it right considering they have a history of banning innocent people.

 

[Nyte Doombringer]

I dont understand why people have to be cheaters just because they dont want something snooping on their computers. As I said before I played WOW that used Warden but it only scanned the ram and there where absolutly no issues with it that I know of. This PB does other stuff that I dont really care for. Also I do agree with people saying about EA's track record in banning people ect. I dont want some program deciding it will ban you for whatever reason and then OMG lets try to get in touch with EA to fix it. Umm no thanks.
Im sure there could be more things implemented to help with cheating on EA's side but even so when you do something someone else will figure a way around it every time and that is not just in this game that is in anything online. For example they implemented changes to try to stop house placement scripting, granted this was 8years too late but they are still placing using scripting and every other trick they can figure out. They just modifyed the script. EA fixes it so magical fields dont block placement anymore, so now they use gates and campfires. Always someone will figure out something to cheat cuz its just human nature.

 

[Lyconis]

I don't need a faq about punk buster to satisfy my desire to have something implemented.

If its such an issue about privacy why don't they just add something to view running tasks compare the programs running to some checksums and just disable the uo client while x checksum is detected. No personal data is sent anywhere no one gets banned pvp will just be low on players between the patches. Good riddance to anyone that quits over that.

If you think that would be an invasion of privacy you are way to paranoid and need psychiatric help.

If this was done for one program in UO 90% of the scripting would be gone. They really don't need something as sophisticated as punk buster.

 

[Petra Fyde]

For your further research:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PunkBuster.

Yes, I want something that catches cheaters
Yes, I will happily agree to the SA eula as posted in this thread
No, I won't like it if punkbuster is used.

Read that link, how would you fancy being banned because you were reading Stratics?? It happened, and not all that long ago.

EA said they would handle it 'in house'. The SA EULA would seem to indicate they're doing just that.

Now can we please stop accusing everyone who has reservations about punkbuster of being cheaters or crazy or both?? I have reservations, I don't cheat and I believe myself to be in my right mind.

 

[Clog|Mordain]

I say implement it. In my opinion it will be a step forward in UO.

 

[Nyte Doombringer]

For your further research:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PunkBuster.

Yes, I want something that catches cheaters
Yes, I will happily agree to the SA eula as posted in this thread
No, I won't like it if punkbuster is used.

Read that link, how would you fancy being banned because you were reading Stratics?? It happened, and not all that long ago.

EA said they would handle it 'in house'. The SA EULA would seem to indicate they're doing just that.

Now can we please stop accusing everyone who has reservations about punkbuster of being cheaters or crazy or both?? I have reservations, I don't cheat and I believe myself to be in my right mind.

I totally agree. Its a program, it can make a mistake, you can get banned for doing other things, it can be manipulated and hacked as well to get you banned.

PunkBuster usually searches for known cheat program signatures as opposed to relying on a more heuristic approach. On March 23, 2008, hackers published and implemented a proof of concept exploit of PunkBuster's indiscriminate memory scanning. Because PunkBuster scans all of a machine's virtual memory, malicious users were able to cause mass false positives by transmitting text fragments from known cheat programs onto a high population IRC channel. When PunkBuster detected the text within user's IRC client text buffers, the users were banned.

Imagine someone hacking that in UO and getting tons of people banned. Hmm again EA customer service, do you really want to deal with that?

 

[Flora Green]

Imagine someone hacking that in UO and getting tons of people banned. Hmm again EA customer service, do you really want to deal with that?

That, too.

 

[Harb]

I voted "yes," and posted earlier in #103 and 106. My view is best described by Maplestone in #107, and JC also describes players such as I accurately in post #110. Petra has been kind enough to do research for us in her various posts, and following along I've developed an additional concern I did not begin with. As several have pointed out, the FAQ links to the original UO posts regarding PB are dated, and situationally things have changed since then. Direct, personal, and timely customer support has waned, and waned significantly. PB is a mechanical process, one that under the original concept would be supported and backstopped by direct, personal, and timely customer support, i.e. human intervention prior to and during adverse action. I may be wrong, but I don't see adequate staffing to enable this to occur. Thats a major concern for me. So I'm probably still a "yes" voter, but by a very thin margin. I may be slipping more into the "convince me" category the more I read and learn.

 

[Tina Small]

For your further research:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PunkBuster.

Yes, I want something that catches cheaters
Yes, I will happily agree to the SA eula as posted in this thread
No, I won't like it if punkbuster is used.

Read that link, how would you fancy being banned because you were reading Stratics?? It happened, and not all that long ago.

EA said they would handle it 'in house'. The SA EULA would seem to indicate they're doing just that.

Now can we please stop accusing everyone who has reservations about punkbuster of being cheaters or crazy or both?? I have reservations, I don't cheat and I believe myself to be in my right mind.

I'm in agreement with Petra. I applied for the SA beta after reading the entire beta testing agreement. I wouldn't be surprised at all to learn that EA has already quietly started doing screen captures, regardless of client used. I do have reservations about Punkbuster, however, because the article Petra referenced indicates that it isn't foolproof and some people have figured out how to trigger false-positive account bans by posting bits and pieces of malicious code on forums and in IRC chats.

As someone else pointed out, EA's history of customer service just isn't sparkling to make me comfortable with the thought of how they would handle a situation where large number of accounts were banned by Punkbuster based on information that innocently got into their computers' memories, for example, as a result of visiting a player forum. I would hope that if EA does go ahead with using Punkbuster, they do a thorough review of their customer grievance procedures at the same time and appoint specially trained ombudsmen to work with customers whose accounts are flagged or banned as a result of information obtained by Punkbuster.

Edited to add: I didn't vote in the poll because neither of the provided options matches how I feel about this topic.

 

[MoneyMaker]

I would like to clarify my last post and my vote.
I am not saying that punk buster is the answer, just an idea that would be a step in the right direction.
Something has to be done about the rampant, blatant, and total disregard of the TOS. (meaning cheating, speedsters, dupers, etc...)
I do not think that a program will solve this problem on its own. A computer/program has parameters it must follow. It does not distinguish between someone using a macro, repeatedly, or someone who is quick with their keystrokes. A program knows no more than is coded into it, same with a computer, it knows no more than you put into it. If you told it that someone who is crafting items creates the same item 100 times consistently without moving or pausing is a person that needs to be flagged for a ban, well the program will do exactly that. It will not try to distinguish if that person is in fact there, or is making the item for his own stock/quest items.
I know that that was a bit of a generalization, but I wanted to give a simplified view.

If we take the human element out of the equation then we are doomed to grief.
I believe that EA needs to involve the players themselves (through a selection process of course.) in the identifying of scripters and other possibly nefarious persons and acts.
I DO NOT mean that the people selected should be able to actually take actions against anyone, just a prioritized report. (meaning that EA should actually investigate these, trained and selected individuals, Reports and not send out the standard canned response.)

Obviously EA does ignore certain reports, and on the one hand I can understand that. We all know about reports being sent due to either Ignorance of TOS (which shouldn't happen, since you can read it anytime), or just from maliciousness.
But on the other hand, when there is a legitimate report filed, it usually receives a canned response, which in my opinion is a failure of the TOS on EA's part.
I have seen many, many suggestions on how EA might take steps to solve this problem. (thats right take steps, because you will never get rid of it, because for every solution there is 5 people, minimum, working on a way around it.)
But EA has let this failure on their part become a issue that costs them many subscribers and many man hours fixing the damage, which should have been addressed early on.

 

[Aran]

What I do on my computer while playing a game is my business. Not EA, not the government, not my fiancee is above my privacy.

I don't care what they say, because people lie to get their way.

 

[ElRay]

Wow devs,

Post after post after post of your loyal customers complaining about hacks and cheats, and you sit there on your collective thumbs and do absolutely nothing? Not even a verbal response? Geez, you guys are brutal.

*shakes head in absolute amazement*

 

[ElRay]

I totally agree. Its a program, it can make a mistake, you can get banned for doing other things, it can be manipulated and hacked as well to get you banned.

PunkBuster usually searches for known cheat program signatures as opposed to relying on a more heuristic approach. On March 23, 2008, hackers published and implemented a proof of concept exploit of PunkBuster's indiscriminate memory scanning. Because PunkBuster scans all of a machine's virtual memory, malicious users were able to cause mass false positives by transmitting text fragments from known cheat programs onto a high population IRC channel. When PunkBuster detected the text within user's IRC client text buffers, the users were banned.

Your using THIS incident to measure against the success of PUNKBUSTER in every game its been applied to??? Please.

Im sure its been identified on how they are exploiting and is being fixed if not already fixed.

Imagine someone hacking that in UO and getting tons of people banned. Hmm again EA customer service, do you really want to deal with that?

Customer service may not have to deal with ANYBODY, with the way things are going with cheating/hacking right now.

 

[Tina Small]

Wow devs,

Post after post after post of your loyal customers complaining about hacks and cheats, and you sit there on your collective thumbs and do absolutely nothing? Not even a verbal response? Geez, you guys are brutal.

*shakes head in absolute amazement*

ElRay, have you read the agreement you must accept if you want to help beta test the new SA client? Are you aware of the section that reads as follows:

5.5 Consent to Monitor. DURING ITS OPERATION, THE GAME MAY MONITOR YOUR COMPUTER'S RANDOM ACCESS MEMORY (RAM) FOR UNAUTHORIZED THIRD PARTY PROGRAMS RUNNING CONCURRENTLY WITH THE GAME. AN "UNAUTHORIZED THIRD PARTY PROGRAM" AS USED HEREIN SHALL BE DEFINED AS ANY THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION ANY "ADDON", "MOD", "HACK", "TRAINER", OR "CHEAT" THAT IN EA'S SOLE DETERMINATION: (I) ENABLES OR FACILITATES CHEATING OF ANY TYPE: (II) ALLOWS USERS TO MODIFY OR HACK THE GAME INTERFACE, ENVIRONMENT, AND /OR EXPERIENCE IN ANY WAY NOT EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED BY EA: OR (III) INTERCEPTS, "MINES", OR OTHERWISE COLLECTS INFORMATION FROM OR THROUGH THE GAME. IN THE EVENT THAT THE GAME DETECTS AN UNAUTHORIZED THIRD PARTY PROGRAM, THE GAME MAY (A) COMMUNICATE INFORMATION BACK TO EA, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION YOUR ACCOUNT NAME, DETAILS ABOUT THE UNAUTHORIZED THIRD PARTY PROGRAM DETECTED, AND THE TIME AND DATE THE UNAUTHORIZED THIRD PARTY PROGRAM WAS DETECTED; AND /OR (B) EA MAY EXERCISE ANY OR ALL OF ITS RIGHTS UNDER THIS AGREEMENT, WITH OR WITHOUT PRIOR NOTICE TO THE USER.

(Sorry for the all caps. This was a direct cut and paste from the agreement itself at https://betacenter.eamythic.com/UOSA/betaTestAgreement.php.)

I wouldn't exactly call this "doing nothing."

 

[Ender]

A lot of good that will do while 2D still exists. Everyone will just keep using 2D if it lacks this monitoring capability. And nobody will be detected.

 

[Petra Fyde]

if it lacks this monitoring capability.

Now here's an assumption we shouldn't be making.

We should bear in mind that this latest conversation about punkbuster was instigated by a poster here. EA has given no reason whatsoever to lead us to believe they plan to implement it for UO, in fact quite the opposite, they have said they will deal with the matter 'in house'. In the SA beta agreement we see that they are, in fact, dealing with it 'in house'.

No where have they said they won't be adding something like this to 2D. It doesn't exist in 2D now, who knows whether that will continue?

EA haven't said they will be adding it to 2D, but on the other hand they haven't said they won't either. How about we wait and see?

 

[Exgirlfriend]

from the site of the #1 cheat program itself....



This is my official statement concerning EA's recent announcements about including PunkBuster to fight scripting.

To summarize it, I think they're using PB as a scare tactic, to annouce that they'll not tolerate XXX any further without needing a ban wave in which they'd lose customers.

Obviously, they've been able to detect XXX before and it's not hard to smuggle something into the client that detects XXX. I can't check every single patch for such things and even if I could I would miss something sooner or later.

So it's quite certain that they know exactly how many XXX users are out there, not just from the number of registered users on our boards but because they used some sort of detection in the past and logged everything. When they saw how many people were using scripts they knew they couldn't just ban everyone because of the financial repercussions. But they couldn't admit to being able to find XXX users either, because the other part of the community would demand that all "cheaters" get banned. And because they were understaffed anyway they probably ignored the problem for a while and let the GMs deal with it as best as they could.

Nowadays, with heaps of items and gold being sold on Ebay and the economy going downwards, they see that they have to do something. Not against the casual scripters, but against the few who abuse the system to farm billions of gold and items. We've seen all this happen before on scripting-friendly freeshards that had to ban XXX for that reason.

So EA had to find a way of telling people that they will be able to detect "cheaters" without admitting that they were able to do just that all along. And they're using the name of a renown company, a 3rd party, to achieve this.

It's quite a smart move, actually. First, you announce that you'll use PunkBuster to get the rumors started. Then you'll make a beta phase where you show the scripters that they can be detected without having to ban them (it's only testing after all). When the system goes active, even if the XXX developers manage to keep XXX hidden from PunkBuster for a while, most users will be too scared to use it anymore. And some of the few that still do could be banned as a deterrent.

Using PB also eliminates the problem of telling people they'll be spied upon. Some users already know PunkBuster and probably have it already on their system. So EA won't have to deal with privacy concerns either because they can refer to Even Balance.

Actually, PunkBuster can only find cheating tools that are known. It's designed to fight those tools used by "kiddies" to cheat in FPS games. So it does not actually attack the creation of cheating tools but their distribution process. If I were to make my own, completely different version of XXX, there would be no way how they could detect that because the PB system just doesn't work that way. But if a tool is distributed on the internet, they can grab it and create detection fingerprints.

Even if I were to devise some countermeasures, they could simply grab XXX again and try to find a way around that. Because PB is a client/server system, they can update their software anytime. We've seen all that happen with World of Warcraft and YYY, a macroing system similar to XXX. The difference between UO and WoW is that Blizzard was a lot better prepared for all that because they came 8 years later than UO and had time to learn from the mistakes of others. They had a zero-tolerance ban policy from the start and were willing to fight in court for their right to scan users harddrives for 3rd party tools (and won).

YYY went down not because they couldn't devise cloaking measurements, but because each time the detection system got around that, Blizzard silently logged all users and banned them a week later. Which is exactly what EA couldn't do because there were already too many people using XXX.

The whole PB thing is only a scare tactic and it's also about shooting with cannons at sparrows. They don't need PunkBuster for detecting XXX which they can do themselves easily enough. In fact, I could come up with really simple code to detect XXX in say... 5 seconds. I mean it's ridiculous to assume EA wouldn't be able to detect something like XXX client-side.

PB is designed to react to small cheater tools. Those tools get released and used by a few hundred people and after about a week, when the PB guys get their hands on it, everyone who still uses it after that gets banned from those FPS games. The cheat tool creators release a new tool and the whole thing starts again.

With XXX, we have a whole scripting platform and over 1500 scripts which are used by over 50,000 people. Besides a few other tools, there isn't even anything else out there because there's just no point to create something that already exists and obviously performs so well because it's free, because there's a public script library (PSL) and forums for help. Even without anything like PB, if EA *REALLY* wanted to do something against a project on such a large scale as XXX then they easily could.

The main reason for XXX success is because it was able to satisfy the need to automate some really boring tasks in UO while the developers did little to help you there. Even the zero-tolerance WoW has a built-in addon system which allows 3rd party code to run within WoW to simplify things for the users (and the whole thing is a great success. People love addons!). EA now finally recognizes the need for some changes to make some tasks in the game less boring but doesn't want to give you the whole thing because it would change the game and would probably be too expensive. They certainly don't want to invest too much money in a game that has seen its best days anyway.

So, where does that leave us after I've said all those things? Do we just give up? Hell no!

You've got a right to play the game in a way where you don't have to fear you'll get the carpal tunnel syndrome. If the developers can't come up with a satisfying solution then they'll have to accept that you'll use a 3rd party tool if that does the job.

Does the introduction of PunkBuster change anything? No, your account ID is probably already stored in some log or another for using XXX in the past. Guess what, so are 49,999 other account IDs and they didn't do anything about it... it's a third of the user base after all. This PB thing is only a marketing trick. It changes nothing. The question is how everyone is going to react. Will you say "Oh my, they can detect me now so I'll better stop". Or will you say "They have already detected me and many others. Why not just keep on using what I've used for the last 5 years?"

We could make the whole thing even more blatant. Why not use a special XXX version that is _designed_ to be detectable? Of cource, you wouldn't feel comfortable using something like that but in fact, it probably wouldn't make any difference. But it would force EA to admit that they didn't satisfy their customers' need to change the game towards less boring tasks and that they kept looking away for the past couple of years. Something like that would kill off the whole PB marketing trick right at the beginning.

Maybe you're asking yourself, if MRXXX knew XXX was detectable client-side in one way or another, why didn't he say anything? Because that would have created an unnecessary panic. We didn't see any ban waves for using XXX in the past so it was unlikely they'd do anything like that in the future. The only time you're at risk is if you do something stupid and a GM pays you a visit, in which case you're hosed anyway. After all, you knew the risks and lived with them. And you knew that many others were using XXX too and didn't get banned either.

In all those years, we've been trying to protect our users by not allowing any cheats/exploits to appear or be discussed on our website. We've kept XXX itself cheat-free and didn't include stuff that would be too dangerous. This was all done because we didn't want to "anger the dragon".

XXX itself isn't good or bad. It can be used for either. And that's the problem with it. EA is trying to get rid of it because the bad people are hiding in the mass of legitimate XXX users.

So, no matter how we react on EAs apparent new stance towards XXX, if they're really willing to go through with this against a third of their customers, then you'll probably see a few changes here.

Of course, I'd much more like the idea to work with EA in order to fight the problem of farm bots or even to integrate XXX into UO or make it UO Pro or something. But I haven't been approached in the past. And since they kept looking away, I just did the same. So EA, if you're up to it, get back to me and we'll see if we can find a better solution.

Otherwise, if worst comes to worst, I might decide to make XXX open source to give EA users a chance to cook up their own XXX versions. Of course, I would continue to manage and support XXX and maybe play a little hide and seek with this oh so powerful PunkBuster. In the end, it really only matters if EA is willing to ban thousands of people and lose a lot of money in the process.

As in the past, we encourage all EA users to take a look at our freeshard server ZZZ or at any of the other high quality servers out there. In case you want to completely turn your back on Ultima Online, I can really recommend World of Warcraft, which is already played by about 50 times as many users as UO has. It looks really nice graphics-wise and comes with an integrated addon system (not really full macro support like XXX has but hey, you can't have everything). Most tasks in WoW aren't nearly as boring as some in UO are, the economy is healthy and casual gaming is possible up to some point. They're even offering free 10-day trial accounts here: XYZXYZXYZXYZ So if you haven't already checked out WoW you may want to do so now.

Other than that there isn't much to say This is my opinion and how I see things. You're free to post your comments below. Also don't hesitate to let the Stratics guys know about this, too.



THIS IS FROM 2006.

 

[ElRay]

*snorts*

Yeah...that would definitely be me.

*rolls eyes*

Beware of your casual generalizations, m'dear.

Tomas said a significant portion of people against punkbuster are cheaters. Not that EVERYONE who is against punkbuster are cheaters. Learn to read much?