275 replies to this topic

[pyrocomp]

Kristov Kerensky, on 13 June 2015 - 06:02 AM, said:

Oh I know we can't keep people from USING hacks in the first place, that will happen no matter what the penalty for being caught is.

But when the penalty is such that getting caught means you can't play the game ever again, it means the people who DO use the hacks are going to be the ones there's no redemption chances with anyway, and it means the average John Q Gamer who might be TEMPTED to try a hack will decide not to, the penalty is not worth it. Griefers will grief, tryhards will always have to be the best regardless of skill, can't stop them from using hacks, ever.

I have no faith in the sanity of others, I've had to deal with people for years directly and indirectly as tech and support, I KNOW better. As for gamers, even worse, I am one and I know how nuts I am.

You at correct on the effects on the numbers of cheaters but it's not that good at keeping hacks usage low. E.g. one guy using aimbot, wallhack etc. in every match produce more 'hacking cases' than 5 guys using aimbot from time to time. In terms of community the amount of 'hacking cases' is more volatile than the actual number of cheaters. Well, unless the number of cheaters exceeds arbitrary 4% (you have good chances to have a cheater-free match).

[Kristov Kerensky]

pyrocomp, on 13 June 2015 - 06:21 AM, said:

You at correct on the effects on the numbers of cheaters but it's not that good at keeping hacks usage low. E.g. one guy using aimbot, wallhack etc. in every match produce more 'hacking cases' than 5 guys using aimbot from time to time. In terms of community the amount of 'hacking cases' is more volatile than the actual number of cheaters. Well, unless the number of cheaters exceeds arbitrary 4% (you have good chances to have a cheater-free match).

Keeping hack usage low is not something you can really aim for, all you can do is make it so the penalty for using them is so harsh that ONLY the worst of the playerbase will be willing to use them, and that allows you to clear your playerbase gene pool of the people you don't want anyway because they willingly declare themselves.

Look at professional sports, where most violations of the rules simply result in a monetary fine, and those rules are broken a LOT because when someone is making millions a year, what's 10 grand for a fine?

Now take drunk driving, which for way too many years was something you would get a ticket for, which meant you paid a small fine(it was pretty small too), so there was no real incentive to stop drinking and driving. Today, in many states in the US, you get a drunk driving ticket, it's not a little fine, it's now a big fine the first time, loss of your license, insurance sky rockets, and it's been far more effective at reducing the number of drunk drivers. Does it stop it totally, sadly, no. I'm sure we all know those morons who continue to drive while drunk regardless of the penalties, until they die or kill someone, they'll keep doing it too. Same with hack usage, make the penalty real harsh and it keeps the average player from using them, but there will always be the morons who use them regardless.

[pyrocomp]

Kristov Kerensky, on 13 June 2015 - 06:52 AM, said:

Keeping hack usage low is not something you can really aim for, all you can do is make it so the penalty for using them is so harsh that ONLY the worst of the playerbase will be willing to use them, and that allows you to clear your playerbase gene pool of the people you don't want anyway because they willingly declare themselves.

Look at professional sports, where most violations of the rules simply result in a monetary fine, and those rules are broken a LOT because when someone is making millions a year, what's 10 grand for a fine?

Now take drunk driving, which for way too many years was something you would get a ticket for, which meant you paid a small fine(it was pretty small too), so there was no real incentive to stop drinking and driving. Today, in many states in the US, you get a drunk driving ticket, it's not a little fine, it's now a big fine the first time, loss of your license, insurance sky rockets, and it's been far more effective at reducing the number of drunk drivers. Does it stop it totally, sadly, no. I'm sure we all know those morons who continue to drive while drunk regardless of the penalties, until they die or kill someone, they'll keep doing it too. Same with hack usage, make the penalty real harsh and it keeps the average player from using them, but there will always be the morons who use them regardless.

Looks like the main point where we disagree is at the psychological threat and overall harshness of the permaban. The rest is minor.

[Kristov Kerensky]

pyrocomp, on 13 June 2015 - 06:59 AM, said:

Looks like the main point where we disagree is at the psychological threat and overall harshness of the permaban. The rest is minor.

You can't make it a psychological threat, it must be real and it must be as harsh as it can be, otherwise, human beings being human beings, they'll ignore the threat because it has no teeth. Drunk driving is a great example of that, used to be a really major problem in the US as the punishment wasn't there, then they gave real teeth to punishing it and the results speak for themselves.

[Soy]

ManDaisy, on 11 June 2015 - 05:50 PM, said:

Hey fresh ban wave which means months and months of unhampered cheating before the next wave. Enjoy playing with cheaters for a couple months.

Nice logic. As if to suggest that there was no cheaters prior to the ban wave.

Any other nuggets of wisdom for us, o enlightened one?

[krash27]

Kristov Kerensky, on 12 June 2015 - 02:35 PM, said:

It's not just PGI, Valve, EA, Activision, iD, the list goes on and on, devs/publishers are never eager to STOP people from giving them money and this IS a business after all, people have to always keep that in mind. Video games are entertainment for us, but they are business for the people who make them, not a passion or a life's goal, a business. Even Chris Roberts is out to make a buck at the end of the day, don't let the PR fool ya.

People who spent money on a hack AND spent $100 or more on the game itself, well, you let them come back and they'll drop more money on the game, every time, so...

For every cheater that they allow back into the game, how many paying customers do you think it drives off or at the very least closes their wallet?
Is the money of the few cheaters worth the people that stop paying and playing?

krash27

[Kristov Kerensky]

krash27, on 13 June 2015 - 11:58 AM, said:

For every cheater that they allow back into the game, how many paying customers do you think it drives off or at the very least closes their wallet?
Is the money of the few cheaters worth the people that stop paying and playing?

krash27

That's not a number I can give you, but since the actions of the companies are obvious and still in effect to date, they seem to think they are making more off the hackers. Buddy of mine theorized that the hacks are actually being made by and sold by the companies themselves, so they get paid twice. He also has some other theories about aliens and black helicopters, so I'm not sure I'd put much stock in that theory, but who knows, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Mudhut, macros are allowed by PGI, not up for debate, they've been real clear on that all along.

And there is no free speech on a forum you...shesh, why do I even bother...

[MechWarrior3671771]

"For every cheater that they allow back into the game, how many paying customers do you think it drives off or at the very least closes their wallet?"

Add to that the number of players who give in with "if you can't beat them..."

Especially when apparently the worst that can happen when caught? Re-roll, rinse and repeat.

[Alardus]

Kristov Kerensky, on 13 June 2015 - 05:19 AM, said:

Death penalty? WTBF does that have to do with banning people from a video game? What, did you get busted using hacks in some other game and felt getting banned forever was too much? Or do you just always reach for stupidly over the top comparisons? VIDEO GAME, not life and death here, HUGE effing difference. Permbans don't deprive the idiot who uses hacks from anything but the ability to grief your community, and that's NOT something anyone should be allowed to do in the first damn place.

People who use hacks are NOT good for the community, fact. People who'll use hacks regardless of the consequences are poison for the community, fact.

I personally want it so that if you get busted, you get permbanned on the spot, end of discussion, F off, but I've also been dealing with this type of player for over 20 years and KNOW how they are from experience, lots of experience.

You want to go all PC and be nice to the poor hack user who's mommy abused them by not buying them a pony, fine, tier system :

1st time you get busted, account banned and a 1 month vacation before you can create another account

2nd time you get busted, permbanned, don't come back ever, you've shown you can't be trusted

That's it, you do NOT keep letting them back in because they will continue to use hacks if the ONLY penalty is they lose their account. It's a FREE TO PLAY GAME, they'll just keep coming back and they'll become a griefer, it's what happens, just look at other games that do it, F2P or not, it IS what happens. I mean, we've only had over 20 years of online gaming history to show us this, it's not like it's changed at any point during that time.

WTBF, comparing a ban in a video game to the death penalty...are you effing serious?

Except there is no true way to keep people out. You can google how to get around hardware/ip bans.

[Alardus]

Kristov Kerensky, on 13 June 2015 - 06:52 AM, said:

Keeping hack usage low is not something you can really aim for, all you can do is make it so the penalty for using them is so harsh that ONLY the worst of the playerbase will be willing to use them, and that allows you to clear your playerbase gene pool of the people you don't want anyway because they willingly declare themselves.

Look at professional sports, where most violations of the rules simply result in a monetary fine, and those rules are broken a LOT because when someone is making millions a year, what's 10 grand for a fine?

Now take drunk driving, which for way too many years was something you would get a ticket for, which meant you paid a small fine(it was pretty small too), so there was no real incentive to stop drinking and driving. Today, in many states in the US, you get a drunk driving ticket, it's not a little fine, it's now a big fine the first time, loss of your license, insurance sky rockets, and it's been far more effective at reducing the number of drunk drivers. Does it stop it totally, sadly, no. I'm sure we all know those morons who continue to drive while drunk regardless of the penalties, until they die or kill someone, they'll keep doing it too. Same with hack usage, make the penalty real harsh and it keeps the average player from using them, but there will always be the morons who use them regardless.

Your drunk driving analogy doesn't really work. Plenty of people still do it. There's a difference between a fraction of percent over the limit and heavily, especially given that what is over the limit in one state is under the limit in another state. California sucks for DD rules (too strict).

[Kristov Kerensky]

Alardus, you can indeed google how to get around IP bans, MAC bans and HWID bans, all things easy for the end user to configure manually or via software that you have to buy, this is true.

There are also hardware serial bans that you can't get around without replacing physical hardware, that's what I mean by hardware bans. HWID is Hardware ID, and that's an OS generated value that hasn't been secure in almost a decade for the general public, they've been selling those spoofers that long.

And the drunk driving analogy works just fine, harsh penalties have dropped drunk driving, fact. It still occurs, as some people are going to do it no matter what, same as hack usage won't stop, it will just go down, same as drunk driving.

[Alardus]

If harsher penalties stopped drunk driving, bars would be out of business. Unless you're going to explain that under the legal limit isn't drunk driving, while over is, and then you're running afoul of the fact that legal limits differ by state and country. If you only mean excessively drunk to the point of being a real danger, then it hasn't stopped that, either. Not sure where you're getting your explanation of lower drunk driving from, but I get my data from watching people when I go out. Its still a massive "problem".

Case in point, I know someone recently who left a bar with friends and got a possible "wet reckless" (which is a moronic law), because she was under the legal limit, and parked at a gas station. I typically loathe the crazies who fear monger about alcohol and driving.If you're going to remove people's license because of the possibility of an accident due to slower response time while under the legal limit or slightly at it, then why don't people who are seen having arguments or driving recklessly on the highway, or using cell phones or changing the radio station, having their licenses removed? What they're doing is lowering their response time as well, so they're as much of a danger. Yet it's only "alcoholic" version of reduced response time that damages a driver's license holding capability? Ridiculous.

Examples of getting around serial ban:
https://www.raymond....-and-volume-id/
http://www.unknownch...ent-bypass.html

You're never going to get rid of people who have been banned. If anyone wants to do something they know they'll get banned for, and still wants to come back, they're going to get around it. There's no question of that.

Claiming hardware bans of any sort will stop people is pretty naive.

Edited by Alardus, 13 June 2015 - 05:01 PM.

[Kristov Kerensky]

I'm not going to debate drunk driving laws, which you seem to have a problem with. I do too, but I feel they aren't harsh enough by a LONG effing shot. My little sister was killed by a drunk driver 28 years ago, the guy walked away without so much as a ticket. So I'm glad your friend got busted, don't drink and get behind the wheel, EVER! Texting, talking on a phone, anything which distracts you all should be illegal, much less drinking or getting high. If you do those things while driving, you are an effing moron and I pray that you only kill yourself, hopefully soonest, so the rest of us aren't in danger due to your stupidity.

And you really should read what you linked compared to what I stated. You linked how to change your HWID, which I stated was easy to do because it's an OS generated value. VOLUME number of a HDD is an OS value, it's not the serial number of the actual HDD. The actual serial number can be gained without going through the OS, and you can't change it via the OS so you can't spoof it. PB has been doing this for over a decade to anyone who tries to hack their database, NOT the games PB works with, no one allows that. It's really quite effective and to date, no one has publicized how to get around it short of replacing physical hardware on your computer because you can't.

It's one thiing to spend some cash to get the software to change your HWID(don't actually need to buy that btw) and quite another to actually have to replace your physical hardware, cause that second one, it gets expensive pretty quick when you have to replace your HDD, CPU, ram, cd/dvd, nic, vidcard/s, and anything else they feel like getting the serial off of and banning you by. Some of us actually work in IT and do this kind of stuff for a living, not like we'd have a clue huh?

[Alardus]

Clearly there's a lot left out of that case which would be important to know to determine if it was a fair ruling or not.

Say I'm a hacker, who is willing to spend 100+ dollars for hacks, and willing to spend money on mechs, to get banned, and then repeat the process. Clearly hardware ban isn't going to solve the issue because I could buy new hardware. I already linked ways to spoof hardware serials, and people with money (or who are smart enough to sell off banned hardware and replace it) are still going to get around it. If I was one of those people who enjoyed hacking games for the advantages, I'd figure out exactly what hardware a system bans, and then constantly sell that hardware to replace it with new stuff, minimizing my cost. After all, if I'm spending money for stuff that will be taken from me due to a ban, what's an extra 5-10$ for replacement of a hard drive? How exactly would you find out the actual hardware serial while bypassing the OS? If its software loaded onto the OS, then you haven't bypassed it. If its some form of remote scanning, you're still relying on the OS to deal with those packets. You can't do anything without an OS, so there's the weak point.

Sounds like there might be a market for someone to run a business buying banned hardware to sell it to "white hat" types, for a 10% fee to people who need to dump their flagged equipment.

Edited by Alardus, 13 June 2015 - 06:04 PM.

[Moomtazz]

If there was a way to report hacking ingame I would do it, but I'm not interested in using out of game email in 2015 to report ingame issues. If I did, I would report that Girth Fillmore sure looked shady when I was spectating him in a recent drop.

[Alardus]

Moomtazz, on 13 June 2015 - 06:07 PM, said:

If there was a way to report hacking ingame I would do it, but I'm not interested in using out of game email in 2015 to report ingame issues. If I did, I would report that Girth Fillmore sure looked shady when I was spectating him in a recent drop.

That's the thing. Make it faster and easier to flag someone for hacks. Swiftly dealing with a hacking account is far more effective than trying to do some magical hardware ID banning. If there really was some foolproof way to bypass the operating system to hardware serial ban based on reading the firmware, and it could never be stopped, then people would be explicitly giving step by step instructions on how it works rather than being vague about it. If you have to be vague about some system you claim is foolproof, then its likely you think it isn't.