I agree working on pure numbers is silly, hence only really a reply to the person who introduced it earlier saying the opposite. It's no test at all, just I disagree with the numbers quoted, I'm not using that for any basis other than the opposing the earlier statement.
The Microsoft analogy is irrelevant apart from the size of response needed, every piece of software has its holes. Its how you combat those holes when exploited irrespective of the size (fine in respect to the numbers calculation that should be ignored). The only difference is the size of the task is so much larger, thats why it effectively needs a larger team of dedicated anti-cheat people (I'm not necessary referring to evenbalance, but the scope is so large for cs, that it really must be a full time job for not just one person or something). People criticize PB (as entitled to do, I'd certanly say its not perfect!), however I don't actually hear any viable working alternatives raised. Easy to criticize, but what alternatives. So what are the alternatives? Who are the dedicated team of anti-cheat techs who are going solve the ongoing battle in CS? I'm not nec so much pro PB, more pro the fact that I see a rather large absence which needs filling. R.e PB itself, yes screenshots aren't perfect and no reliance, however they do catch some which would otherwise not be caught. It's like saying it doesn't catch everyone so lets scrap it (I know you aren't coming from that angle, but I don't know any admins who use that as a main method of catching cheats, but they do go through them quickly every so often or in disputes). The point is its an extra tool at an admins disposal that otherwise would not be there. The more tools and the more direct cheat prevention the better, the easier the admins job is. I used to have so many queries in the past whether player x was cheating, at least that is one more avenue for conclusive proof that he is, not proof that he isn't. Sure, the odd cheat has skipped past that (or don't even change the screen), and then its down to the other methods. Its not like it relies on screenshots alone, its an addition tool for admins which I'd rather have. R.e bans, you can configure them to be as long as you want, normally permanent for detected cheats or screenshot cheats, temp bans like 1-5 mins tend to be set for people who don't have a working PB install for example so you remove them from the server until they do (as may be a genuine problem, just you don't want them on server until they do have it working), or you can link in with the permanent PB master ban list so bans are permanent and global for everyone else who uses it (these cannot be added manually to ban people who may not have cheated or you don't like ;) and only works for certified know exploits/cheats, so no abuse possible, admins can't add these themselves). All in all, I don'y see PB as perfect, however for me the approach is the right one. I can't see any other way to do it really, a dedicated team of people working to prevent cheats and thats their expertise. Even better if its a mature setup, where nearly all the initial glitches ironed out like when PB first came out. On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 18:26:28 +1000, Bruce Bahamut Andrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > He has a point ya'know. No one bothers searching for security holes in > Mac's, because lets face it, who cares if all the Macs spontaneously > combust, as long as the PC's are working still... > > Interestingly enough, I've noticed PunkBuster only gives something like > a 1 hours ban for hacks? Maybe that's something that is configurable, > wouldn't have thought so though. > > The only anti-cheat support that's ever going to get anywhere is one > that updates on the client and server automatically, and at the moment > VALVe are the only ones capable of doing this, so no matter what we > think, they're just going to keep on doing whatever it is they're doing > with VAC. > > Isn't punkbuster supposed to be a nightmare to admin? Or was that > PunkBuster when combined with Battlefield? :/ Certainly have a lot of > respect for whoever designed the rcon / variables part of VALVe's games, > soooo much better then any game on the market, yet it's been that way > for seven years. You'd think the game developers would've picked up on > it by now... :/ > > - Bruce "Bahamut" Andrews > > > > > Eric (Deacon) wrote: > > > In a bold display of creativity, Ian mu wrote: > > > >> Add up all the games supporting PB and you'll find there's nowhere > >> near as much cheaters not sure what crack people are smoking if they > >> think there's more. No comparison at all. Also there's the other > >> features like screenshot grabbing etc which can catch many of those > >> that get through as not detected yet, plus the global master ban list > >> means its pretty effective. > > > > > > I'd like to point out that gaping security holes aren't the ONLY reason > > there are more viruses for Microsoft products. It's also because > > they're on over 80%, some estimates say over 90% of all desktops in the > > World. Working on pure numbers alone is silly. It's like denigrating > > some small European country because they didn't donate as much money as > > the US did for some 3rd world cause, when in reality their GDP may be > > only a tiny fraction of the GDP in the US. Also, I'd advise against > > falling for this false notion of security in "screenshot grabbing", > > which was easily bypassed by cheats, later to be trumped, soon after to > > be bypassed again, etc. This is no silver bullet. It is an ongoing > > battle just like any other anti-cheat system may have. And I still am > > not totally on board with any global list of bans, as the potential for > > abuse is just too great. > > > > I'm sure PB is certainly better than nothing, these days, and it > > certainly is *a* way to help the symptom of "cheats" on public servers. > > Is it the *best* way? I remember this argument came up a good while > > back, just as the argument about an allegedly malicious file-checking > > "bug" that was a fixture for so long and did a great positive service > > was "fixed" (just like the server.cfg loading at ever map change was a > > "bug" that was "fixed", even though everyone relied on it as SOP). Many > > seemed to come out of the woodwork as fanboys, unwilling to consider any > > perspective on it other than PB being a panacea to the problem of people > > generally being assholes in life, at least as it applied to "cheats" > > (some of which were rather subjective in nature) in their favorite > > online game. > > > >> The philosophy from the game companies is interesting as well. > >> Evenbalance offered their services to Valve for $1 total nominal fee, > >> Valve turned it down. Evenbalance offered their services to Id for > >> free, Id said we'll take them but not for free, we'll pay you a decent > >> amount to do a decent job. I know which company has the best > >> philosophy for me. > > > > > > There's a whole lot more to it than money, as I'd hope you're well > > aware. It's never as simple as awarding the contract to the lowest > > bidder (unless you're in government, heh). These "philosophies" are > > actually business decisions being made, and neither you nor I have > > enough information to make an informed judgment on each of the different > > business decisions, whether good or bad either way. Regarding any of > > these moves as "philosophies" is really reading very deeply into it, > > probably to an unreasonable extent. > > > > -- > > Eric (the Deacon remix) > > > > _______________________________________________ > > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > > please visit: > > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux > > > > _______________________________________________ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please > visit: > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux > _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
