View Single Post
Old 09-16-2003, 01:42 AM   #8
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 89
Default You still have it wrong.

Far superior method to non dynamic patches that only release twice a year.
You missed the point. Security and reliability of dynamic patches aside, whether or not PunkBuster has dynamic patches is immaterial. The fact is PunkBuster breaks things too easily with all of the PC applications which are released and updated, and it is one more thing running when the game is all that needs to be running for best performance. Client-side cheat protection like this is not a good idea. The ends don't justify the means.

But you are trying to intimate that your experience represents the majority instead of a very small minority.
I am not intimating that at all because it is irrelevant. The fact is even if only a small minority of players have problems with PunkBuster, that is still a group of customers who paid for the game and have the right to be able to play it without the problems.

That happens to be fact as compaired to what your statement is trying to imply.
The fact that PunkBuster is updated so frequently shows that problems are more than with just a minority. The fact is neither one of us has actual statistics to know how many people actually have problems with PunkBuster and don't use it or switch to another game because of it. My point is even if it is just one person, that one person is important.

every statement you have made so far is way over the top. So who is the fanatic here?
Only from the perspective of a fanatical supporter of PunkBuster.

The servers are up from a low of around 2000 just a short six months ago.
PunkBuster has been implemented in Quake 3 for almost a year (since the v1.32 update). Therefore, whether or not the number of servers is up in the past six months is irrespective of PunkBuster. The fact that QuakeCon was recently held is a far more likely possibility as to why Quake 3 is a little more popular now.

In the rare and I mean rare event of a false detection occurred it is posted publically within hours of first reports.
That is only in cases where a means of detection is false NOT a particular incident. For example, PunkBuster may detect that I am running some aimbot-type program when I am not even though the particular program that PunkBuster is checking for is in fact an actual aimbot program.

More importantly and likely, PunkBuster may be set to think that a particular CVAR I have set on my client is a cheat when I don't feel that it is. The CVAR was put in the game to be used. With PunkBuster I am branded a cheat simply because I am making use of a feature in the game which the authors of PunkBuster happen to not like.

So in practice in the real world it's not a big deal.
It's a big deal to the person who gets banned or prevented from playing by it. And, a single person trying to get the banned removed is far more difficult than you know or will admit.

You can't generate a secure guid unless it is also client side.
What a crock of shit! You obviously know nothing about programming or even the commonly used authentication systems. There are so many ways this could be done. The simplest would be for the secure GUID to be issued by the normal CD key authentication server and passed to the game server during the authentication process which is basically how the standard Quake 3 CD key authentication works right now. This would simply be one extra piece of data passed to the game server.

PB is built into the what does that mean.
PB is an external DLL which also runs client-side. The few useful functions I specified above could be incorporated into the main executable like the CD key authentication routines currently are and executed only in server mode, and the client could be spared running anything extra.

it's not practical to recompile the main game binaries for each update.
When you remove the client-side crap, and just implement GUID banning and a few of the other useful features, you won't need constant updates. The client-side crap is what is causing the constant updating.

I challenge you to go out and find players that PB has recorded that didn't use a hack.
I am sure if I advertised for players to come forward, I would find some. Actually a class action lawsuit against game companies over this is a good idea.

The servers you play on don't belong to you and you are a guest.
Game publishers sell their multiplayer games with the promise of being able to play them online. Sure, they don't typically host many if any servers themselves, but they have both enabled this capability and created the expectation of it. Therefore, those who purchase their games are lead to believe there will be servers available and publishers have a responsibility to meet that expectation they created. If server operator uses a system included with the game to ban a user who purchased the game from their particular server, that is one thing. However, when server operators collude to ban a user from all of their servers, then the publisher has created a de facto blacklist system and is not meeting its obligation to provide the blacklisted user with the capability to play online.

by detecting the most common cheats with 100% accuracy.
You admit PunkBuster makes mistakes and yet still maintain that it is 100% accurate. LOL!


We wouldn't have cheating or obnoxious behavior if people were civilized.
First, cheating at a video game especially in casual online play is hardly a capital offense although fanatical gamers act like it is. Unjust accusatory and discriminatory behavior is far more inequitable and offensive. Second, I am talking about a society not individual behavior. What makes a society civilized is that it has a system of laws in place which aspires to be egalitarian and respects the rights of the accused and the minority.

It's my server and I can choose any method I like to protect it. Why do you have such a problem with that concept.
I will repeat it since you seem to be a little slow. In a civilized society, as an individual you should have the right to discriminate in your personal affairs within reason. However, you should not have the right to collaborate with others to discriminate in a like manner as a group to deny access. Because when you do that, you effectively create a universal blacklist and an underclass made up of those who are denied.

No shoes, no shirt, no service.
That applies to public restaurants due to health reasons. A restaurant which serves the public cannot discriminate against it for other reasons.

'Judicial system'??? Nobody is going to jail here.
Your vocabulary is obviously lacking. A "judicial system" simply means to have a system in place where the accused can defend himself against accusation, and where no ban or other punishment is imposed until the accused is given this opportunity. A fair judicial system also incorporates an impartial magistrate to oversee this process to ensure that it is fair to the accused. Right now, if PunkBuster says a player is cheating he is immediately convicted and punished with no such guaranteed review. In addition, even if the accused is truly guilty of cheating, the punishment is a permanent and effectively universal ban given the collusion of server operators. A universal life sentence hardly fits this crime.


Before PB, all kick and bans were subjective... now fewer are. That's an improvement

LOL! Some improvement. Without PunkBuster an individual server operator makes his own decision. Now, he lets PunkBuster do it for him. It's still subjective only now there is less review or individual responsibility since it is PunkBuster's developers and their code which makes the decision.

Game companies can't promise something they don't control.
LOL! Game companies have complete control over the ability of their customers to play online when they implement an authentication system as exists in Quake 3. They further exercise control when they implement the potential for a universal blacklist system as PunkBuster does. Yes, they do not own all of the game servers, but they do enable play on them. Therefore, the game publishers have a responsibility to provide a place for ALL of their paying customers to play the game since they created the expectation and also control the means of doing so.

Afteral making the playing field as even as possible helps you get your moneys worth.
Those who get banned or otherwise excluded from playing most certainly do NOT get their money's worth. They don't get to play the game for which they paid.
Riley_Pizt is offline   Reply With Quote