Punkbuster Yes or No?

[Flutter]

Hmmm... it's 50/50! I could be the deciding vote!
Hmmm...

 

[Gellor]

You mean GM's actually show up? I thought they were all Auto Canned Responses nowadays! Just kidding... but if the Timer system I discuss were implemented in the proper way (I wont claim to be a programmer here) but I am sure that the system would catch so many actual script running bot chars out there that eventually in time the GM's would get less and less of those type "Pages" by the "Counter System" and then would have more time to concentrate on other cheats and hacks etc. All I am trying to say is it is a trickle down effect that will be most effective in my opinion. Especially when one considers that a lot of the players who are using the resource bot type scripting are also the ones using the other variations of cheats in UO. Nock out several birds with one stone!

I wish stratics had a super archive because in the past, someone explained that a majority of resource scripters are "sweat shops" in the east where they have dozens of computers with 1 or 2 guys "watching" them. The scripts would page upon GM showing up... the guy would give his own canned response and be on his way

At another time, someone explained how scripters are too smart for GM checking... either they'd have GM detectors in the script or they'd change their script enough so it wouldn't set off an automated page.

Would an automated paging system work? Yes but not in the method you think. It might catch a few but not even a dent in what is out there. Being generous, I'd say you may catch 10%.

To give you two examples:

1. The Script Adjuster: Lets say there are 1000 accounts used by resource scripters. Using my 10%, you throw out 100 accounts. Sounds good but now the other 900 know something is up and modify their scripts to avoid the action that got the other 100 caught... as an example, they know EA is looking for 1000 shovel uses an hour. Now they throw in pickaxes and if that isn't enough, they go lumber jacking
   
2. The GM Time Waster: Using my above example of 1000 shovel uses and 1000 resource scripter numbers. How many people that are NOT scripters use a shovel 1000 or more times? 1000? 2000? 5000? Lets be generous and call it 2000 although I'm sure the number is 100 fold. So, what the automated system does is for every 1 valid scripting page, it generates 2 pages on live people. Over time, the number of valid script calls goes down but not by a huge amount but to be generous, say the number of valid script calls get cut in half. You still have to account for the number of invalid calls which will not go down.

I will say what I always say: don't think that I feel there is no problem or that I feel nothing should be done; there is a problem and it does need to be addressed. But EA needs to put in a well thought out solution that will give well under 1% false IDs... unlike what they have done in the past.

I do feel they need to curb the current "vigilante" system that is currently in effect: ie, I'm going to page on you because you don't talk with me... just because this is an online game doesn't mean I have to talk with everybody that walks up to me*rolleyes* I suppose the good news is I get to talk with a live GM every once in awhile thanks to these guys:bowdown: I'd love to see a "if you give us 3 false pages in a day, you get suspended for a day" type rule implemented.

 

[Chiera]

it's far less complicated than that. They'd just have to track the connection time for a given ip for a certain periond of time. And since they do that anyway most probably, the whole scripting/cheating affair isn't a technical one but a business one.

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

Anyone that knows TCP/IP can route through a proxy and avoid any IP trace back to their own IP address.

Monitoring connection time is not the answer.

 

[Chiera]

sure, but we're talking 'bout cheaters in online games here, not any serious business. And even if they used proxy cascades, it would still be the same accounts online for an excessive amount of time.

 

[Gellor]

sure, but we're talking 'bout cheaters in online games here, not any serious business. And even if they used proxy cascades, it would still be the same accounts online for an excessive amount of time.

And you are going to throw an arbitrary number at "if you play more than "x" hours, you MUST be scripting"? *rolleyes*

I hate to say it but some days I've been known to do a UO for 12+ hours either with a group or solo.

Plus, you are not giving the cheaters credit as well as being naive about the nature of some of the cheaters. Some of the cheaters ARE a "legitimate" business. You think they use the same accounts 24x7 for months on end? LOL, I highly doubt that. If a magic "you must be macroing" number is set, guess what they do? They double the number of trial accounts and stagger there usage.

There is NO simple solution to this problem and I've yet to see a reasonable solution that would be 99% foolproof... heck, not even 80% foolproof. And that would be fool proof from an implementation stand as well as a CLEAR definition stand. If you don't have either of those being foolproof, the past has shown us EA will drop the ball on it.

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

sure, but we're talking 'bout cheaters in online games here, not any serious business. And even if they used proxy cascades, it would still be the same accounts online for an excessive amount of time.

Accounts yes...IP addresses...not necessarily.

That was my point.

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

There is NO simple solution to this problem and I've yet to see a reasonable solution that would be 99% foolproof... heck, not even 80% foolproof. And that would be fool proof from an implementation stand as well as a CLEAR definition stand. If you don't have either of those being foolproof, the past has shown us EA will drop the ball on it.

There is simple solution to scripters that use trial accounts...

...get rid of trial accounts.

Not sure that's the right way to go, but it would put an end to it.

Also, as someone else pointed out, scripters could actually pay of the accounts they use and still make profits. On the upside to that though, is that EA would get more revenue.

But it still wouldn't end scripting...it would just end scripting with trial accounts.

 

[Maplestone]

just have to say I'm rather amazed at how consistantly the voting has hovered around 50-50 all alone ... we must be a bunch of contrarians

 

[Chiera]

And you are going to throw an arbitrary number at "if you play more than "x" hours, you MUST be scripting"? *rolleyes*

I hate to say it but some days I've been known to do a UO for 12+ hours either with a group or solo.

so, what's 12 hours ? It may be a significant and exhausting period for you. But not for a piece of software.
See, any cheating venture that acually mimicks game play to gather resources or bods takes online time. And plenty of it, since it uses the same game mechanisms as you do. The only difference is actually that code doesn't have a life (k some may argue that statement ), doesn't get bored or tired.
So to make any kind of profit it has to 'play' significantly longer than the average player, either on one, two, three or 50 accounts. The code won't mind how many.

Excessive online time is a must for a venture like this, and this makes it detectable in principle.

Now, if I was to run such a business, I'd try to mask the codes online time by using multiple accounts. As long as those accounts are free of charge and anonymous I'd be quite happy. Easy to set up, no costs, more profit. Maybe a little fiddling with the IP as well, but then, why should I ? I'd be doing nothing illegal after all.

So from the games perspective this makes free trial accounts and game time codes problematic, as those are the means of getting free and/or anonymous online time. I am actually quite happy that Mythic seems to adress these weak points. Even if that means the official number of subscriptions will drop.

But this will only adress this specific form of cheating, the excessive use of game mechanics using software.
Much more devastating to the game and its economy though are cheats that abuse and exploit game mechanics such as duping.

 

[Harlequin]

just have to say I'm rather amazed at how consistantly the voting has hovered around 50-50 all alone ... we must be a bunch of contrarians

On the contrary, the results of this current poll seems to contradict the earlier contradictory polls.



Regarding PB, as I have said earlier, a bettter solution is for the devs to code in a detection engine directly into the UO client (eg detect and flag illegal 3rd party program usages) and use that in tandem with GMs.

Yes, in the beginning, there will be more work for the GMs, but once people stop cheating, the number of these pages will ultimately go down. Just use the license fees they have to pay for PB to hire more GMs. Once cheaters realize that they will be detected and GMs will take action, I dare say a good portion of them will stop. Meaning less cheater pages for the GMs to respond to. Once the number of cheaters become drastically reduced, we will have extra GMs who can now aid the overtaxed GMs to handle other in-game issues more speedily.

If the anti trial account abuse measures are also implemented, most cheaters would not risk having their main accounts (or any secondary accounts paid by the same CC) marked or banned. That leaves creating new accounts with their 20 different CCs (which will run out sooner or later), or more likely, phony CCs (which is illegal and breaking a whole different set of laws).

However, I doubt people would risk cheating and have their highly trained/ fully scrolled/artifact decked chars banned.

 

[Harlequin]

I wish stratics had a super archive because in the past, someone explained that a majority of resource scripters are "sweat shops" in the east where they have dozens of computers with 1 or 2 guys "watching" them. The scripts would page upon GM showing up... the guy would give his own canned response and be on his way

Regarding sweat shops in the east aka Chinese gold farmers, I remember that, as you said it was some time in the past.

Looking at how much UO gold sells for now, I am afraid that UO is not as lucrative as before. Based on the WoW subscription numbers from China, I am guessing the majority of them (if not all) have moved or "diversified" to WoW.

At another time, someone explained how scripters are too smart for GM checking... either they'd have GM detectors in the script or they'd change their script enough so it wouldn't set off an automated page.

Would an automated paging system work? Yes but not in the method you think. It might catch a few but not even a dent in what is out there. Being generous, I'd say you may catch 10%.

To give you two examples:

1. The Script Adjuster: Lets say there are 1000 accounts used by resource scripters. Using my 10%, you throw out 100 accounts. Sounds good but now the other 900 know something is up and modify their scripts to avoid the action that got the other 100 caught... as an example, they know EA is looking for 1000 shovel uses an hour. Now they throw in pickaxes and if that isn't enough, they go lumber jacking
   
2. The GM Time Waster: Using my above example of 1000 shovel uses and 1000 resource scripter numbers. How many people that are NOT scripters use a shovel 1000 or more times? 1000? 2000? 5000? Lets be generous and call it 2000 although I'm sure the number is 100 fold. So, what the automated system does is for every 1 valid scripting page, it generates 2 pages on live people. Over time, the number of valid script calls goes down but not by a huge amount but to be generous, say the number of valid script calls get cut in half. You still have to account for the number of invalid calls which will not go down.

No offense, that's precisely the wrong way for devs to go about detecting scripters

Too many variables and different scripts to take into account. As you have said, if people are smart enough to write scripts, they will be smart enough to notice patterns and modify their scripts to adapt.

However, what's the commonality between these people? They all rely on only a couple of scripting programs. Same for speedhackers that directly edit the data stream (not the overclocking kinds).

A simpler method is to have the client send a flag to the GMs if it detects the signatures of known illegal programs.

Yes, I said "known". People that are even smarter and write their own script engines will not be caught if they just kept the program to themselves. But once they start sharing it, then it increases the risk exponentially that someone will blabber/brag/expose it.

I am guessing that 99% of scripters rely on publicly available script engines.

I will say what I always say: don't think that I feel there is no problem or that I feel nothing should be done; there is a problem and it does need to be addressed. But EA needs to put in a well thought out solution that will give well under 1% false IDs... unlike what they have done in the past.

I do feel they need to curb the current "vigilante" system that is currently in effect: ie, I'm going to page on you because you don't talk with me... just because this is an online game doesn't mean I have to talk with everybody that walks up to me*rolleyes* I suppose the good news is I get to talk with a live GM every once in awhile thanks to these guys:bowdown: I'd love to see a "if you give us 3 false pages in a day, you get suspended for a day" type rule implemented.

Now this is an interesting topic. There are alot of griefers out there, I'll admit. Some people even page without even attempting to say anything. But most people only page when your actions look automated and they have verified that you don't respond to them.

I find it better to just say a simple hi and have a short conversation to let people know I am not UM'ing and save them the hassle of trying to verify if I am UM'g/page a GM.

 

[Harlequin]

I think you missed the point of my post. It still takes GM's time to go investigate all the false positives that would be generated by a counter. So while the number of player pages for resource macroing may go down, the actual wait time for a GM to show up for anything would increase.

As a made up example, let's say right now a GM gets 25 calls from players for "resource macroing" that take 25 minutes total to address. Now under your system, they could get 50 server generated pages for "resource macroing" that take 50 minutes total to address. In an ideal world, you lose 25 player calls but gain 50 server calls... thus netting 25 new calls and adding 25 minutes of wait.

If it was just based on a rudimentary counting of the hours logged in or number of times shovels are used, yes, there will be alot of false positives. And it's only limited to UM'g.

This will create alot of un-neccessary work for the GMs. So I don't think the devs will do it that way.

But if properly implemented (again, referring to a detection engine coded into the UO client), there will definitely still be an increase of server calls. However, instead of false positives, this will actually be due to the server ferreting out all the scripters hiding in isolated areas thinking that no one will see them and page.

Also, as soon as cheaters get news of this, the amount of cheating will go down. In the long term, the GMs will have less pages regarding UM'g/speedhacking and will have more time to respond to other pages.

 

[Harlequin]

There is simple solution to scripters that use trial accounts...

...get rid of trial accounts.

Not sure that's the right way to go, but it would put an end to it.

Also, as someone else pointed out, scripters could actually pay of the accounts they use and still make profits. On the upside to that though, is that EA would get more revenue.

But it still wouldn't end scripting...it would just end scripting with trial accounts.

Correct, doing away with trial accounts entirely is not the answer and will only deal with scripting using trial accounts.

Just to highlight though, scripting and trial account abuse are 2 different things. A proper solution would need to look at both these and other areas. And they are doing something about the trial accounts first, which is an excellent decision that will force potential cheaters to use less "annonymous" accounts.

 

[Amren]

Yeah...but how many does it NOT catch?

How many times have you been fragged by someone that you KNEW was cheating?

I can't say for certain that I have played your server, but I know that several I have played have had problems with hacks of all kinds.

Lets assume that at the least it will detect 2 cheats a week. That is 2 less cheats that the rest of the population of UO has to deal with.

No online game will ever be 100% secure. However if there were detection systems in place it would all go a long way to help the game out. I think it would be nice to actually be able to get legit customer service in UO. Having to wait through all the pages people make to accuse others of cheating would be on the decline.

 

[Aran]

I'll keep all the cheaters, so long as I can get rid of all the whiny so-and-sos.

 

[Wenchkin]

I'll keep all the cheaters, so long as I can get rid of all the whiny so-and-sos.

Then you'll never be happy in UO. Listen to the common lines spouted by cheats - it's too hard, it takes too long, I'll hurt my poor little fingers. Now those are the real spineless cry babies. As long as they can use cheating to compensate for their lack of ability, they'll be here asking for easier this and that, nerfs to the class who keeps killing them and so on.

Wenchy

 

[Aran]

I'll keep all the cheaters, so long as I can get rid of all the whiny so-and-sos.

Then you'll never be happy in UO. Listen to the common lines spouted by cheats - it's too hard, it takes too long, I'll hurt my poor little fingers. Now those are the real spineless cry babies. As long as they can use cheating to compensate for their lack of ability, they'll be here asking for easier this and that, nerfs to the class who keeps killing them and so on.

Wenchy

Found the first one to get rid of.

 

[The Craftsman]

Uhhhh, it it works?? It would work. Else why would other games implement it?
For its kewl name?

What would EA gain by implementing PB and eliminating the majority of cheaters?

Why its called "credibility" or maybe "dignity" or how about "pride in your work"
or maybe showing the gaming community you actually give a fu*k

Credibility? Dignity? Pride in your work? EA cares not for these things. EA would gain NOTHING by implementing punkbuster ... they would only lose half their ramaining players (the cheats) and therefore the revenue.

Hell, 50% of Stratics players dont want it ... maybe it would interfere too much with their speedhacking or scripting?

 

[Radun]

getting tired of these "if you don't support this, you must be a cheater" assumptions. many people have outlined various concerns that are not anything to do with "i wont be able to cheat".. in fact, I'd say the number one best reason I've seen so far is that it *wouldn't* stop people from cheating.

 

[Lore Master]

Someone above posted that it would stop 80% of the cheating.

It's more like 40-50%.

PB would only stop the people that were afraid to download hacks and such in the first place.

Players that know other players and have trusted sources will still do what they do.

Ask anyone that plays BF2142 and BF2 servers. There are jump hacks, ammo hacks, bots, item hacks, speed hacks, etc. all over the place. And these games are all EA and all PB enabled.

Seriously. It won't work.

I don't care if it stops 5 percent of the cheating it would be a possitive step regardless. i just wonder what percentage of those voting no cheat themselves. unless your one of those cheating i don't get why you vote no Ea already has most of our credit card numbers so what gives?

 

[Beastmaster]

I voted no because of the privacy issue. This privacy issue is the same thing preventing the Devs from creating any built in detection routines. This has been hashed and rehashed over and over. The bottom line is without the informed consent of the financially responsible account holder EA cannot scan your system for anything other than its own program files. This is why they are able to block some of the older cheats like map hacking and such, but cannot touch the third party wares in use that do not show up at the server end. Once they got the teen rating for this game they stepped into a different world with respect to system privacy. Can you see EA mass mailing (not emailing) all account holders with a new written EULA?

 

[Chiera]

Once they got the teen rating for this game they stepped into a different world with respect to system privacy. Can you see EA mass mailing (not emailing) all account holders with a new written EULA?

well, and even if they did, it wouldn't make much of a difference round here (Germany that is). In a rare moment of enlightenment and wisdom our relevant supreme court ruled that all parts of a licence contract have to be made known to both parties involved beforehand to actually become part of the contract (and no, a weblink is far from sufficient for this). This means if one buys a sealed software package where EULA's only pop up when the software is actually installed they are legally not part of the contract (a fact that gives Apple a slight headache atm ).

 

[Wenchkin]

I don't care if it stops 5 percent of the cheating it would be a possitive step regardless. i just wonder what percentage of those voting no cheat themselves. unless your one of those cheating i don't get why you vote no Ea already has most of our credit card numbers so what gives?

Or maybe we're not cheats, we simply think there are better ways to tackle this problem. Why does everyone who disagrees with PB have to be a cheat? It's one method of dealing with cheats, but not the only option. Ever hear the phrase that prevention is better than cure? UO has a lot of scope for cheat prevention, long before measures like Punkbuster come into play. If PB had been the perfect solution, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Wenchy

 

[Old Man of UO]

it's far less complicated than that. They'd just have to track the connection time for a given ip for a certain periond of time. And since they do that anyway most probably, the whole scripting/cheating affair isn't a technical one but a business one.

So, write a script that logs you off after a few hours online, logs back in and starts over. Never caught with your suggestions.

Or perhaps you are saying we can only play a few hours a day, and anything over that is a cheater?

 

[Chiera]

lol... you mean the chinese way ? You know, one can perform an addition on time periods. Server logs are all there.

 

[Corpsecrank]

Hahaha, oh yeah, sure they will work. Believe everything you see from a search engine for hacks. Just because it's posted in a hacking website doesn't mean anything.

Look I don't even need to read it because I have watched it happen in both CoD4 and CoD5. I play both and use PB with both and if PB isn't failing to initialize and getting me kicked from servers for general malfunctions then people are circumventing it and use a screen shot cleaner to further hide the cheats. So unless staff is actively watching then the person cheats and gets away with it all while PB kicks honest players because the program fails to work.

So all you get by using PB is frustration on the part of those who have technical issues with it and a slight decrease in common cheats. Just remember once you get rid of the common cheat that most anyone can use you are left with nothing but the hardcore hacks that do all the damage to the game. I imagine this would cause a spike in serious cheats such as dupes and account hacking. You would see almost no power leveling of characters by scripting skill and resources. Resources however would quadruple in price easily after a few months though.