PBBans

Quote

PBBans has been working with DICE to help with PB features that sites like ours use. While there is still work to be done in regards to PB integration, PBBans will now be offering streaming support for BC2.

I want to say thanks to DICE for offering their support to help make this happen.

Bad Company 2 will be added to our systems upon release. Also a game based signature will be added and available for account users to select.

what about ganning access to the server files? PBBans isn't a public organization?

Ice Man, on Jan 8, 2010 - 02:15 PM, said:

A lot of smaller GSP's can't even get the files so I have a better chance at hitting a lotto jackpot than getting access to those files. Dice wants to keep them restricted to a select few of GSP's just like BF2 ranked and BF Heroes.

People wanted ranked so now they have to live with the side effects. Guess the haters and hackers will be happier.

so meaning there will be PunkBuster... but we won't be able to stream to PBBans? How nice! PB sucks without PBBans... =]

{GsG} TropzSP, on Jan 8, 2010 - 02:38 PM, said:

That is correct. We will only offer client support like BF Heroes.

Seems there is a poll about a PB master ban list at EA UK forums:
http://forums.electronicarts.co.uk/battlefield-bad-company-2-pc/873191-do-you-want-masterbanlist-pb.html

Sadly, they're under the impression that DICE has to release the right files to pb in order for this to happen, from that poll-link. It's public access to the dedicated server files that is needed. If a test server can't be set up locally on PBBan's part (not a rented server) the necessary testing can't be done to provide support. Access to the pb files isn't an issue at all.

As I posted on EA forums:

Quote

The problem is they are being restricted to a smaller number of GSP's for security. A lot of GSP's never got access to ranked server files so I doubt we will get them mainly because most developers think PB by itself does the job.

I need to be able to run a server, ranked or unranked.

MaydaX, on Jan 8, 2010 - 03:19 PM, said:

Hi guys long time member of PBBANS I'm freaking pissed about this! Total outrage! Hackers already have a clear advantage over clean players this will only give them more of an advantage!
Edited by OPTIMUSPRIME, Jan 8, 2010 - 03:22 PM.

What about an extra cfg or something to run along side PB so the server can stream and not cause an issue .
Possible?

numbnutts, on Jan 8, 2010 - 03:44 PM, said:

Streaming itself is not the issue, the problem is we can't run a test server should any problems arise. We will not support a game that we can't easily debug.

Quote

http://twitter.com/L_Twin/status/7531207044

Quote

http://twitter.com/GordonVanDyke/status/7532322949

So I wouldn't get your hopes up.

Isn't renting a server from a GSP the same thing for running a test server?

Not if you do not have access to all the server files. The same model used on BF2 etc is being used here, so only access to the pb folder is allowed, and limited, at that. Keep in mind, it's not the pb folder where most cheat files get installed, and as such, no way to work with MD5's and so on, if a local test server can't be run. It isn't the pb folder that we need access too, we actually need the game's server files themselves to run tests. No publicly available server files means no streaming. Period.

In other words, you need DICE or a GSP to give you the go to look at the server files?

Soulzz, on Jan 8, 2010 - 04:54 PM, said:

Dice has too. If a GSP provided them, they would be in breach of contract and lose their right to host servers. We simply cannot and will not ask that of any GSP, ever.

RoadWarrior, on Jan 8, 2010 - 05:16 PM, said:

Gotcha. Well, we've got a little less in 2 months to start getting DICE to change it. That's a lot more then IW gave us. I think we should keep constructively asking them. .

Soulzz, on Jan 8, 2010 - 05:23 PM, said:

Ask them with informed posts. Not just that punkbuster needs....

Personally, as a side-note. Any game that does not offer me direct and personal access to PUBLIC server files is not a game I'll run a server for, so DICE just lost out on my money. I want to be able to change my server config and so on directly, not using some third-party control center program. I figure if I'm going to pay that much a slot, and most will notice that BF-series games cost a fair bit more than servers like COD4 do, to run per slot, I want full access. I have that with COD4, and have with previous games I've run. All those games that allow public server files also end up being better protected, in the long run, with private anti-cheat sites. DICE has done this wrong, rather than right, imo. But again, not up to me, I'm sure there'll be plenty of suckers willing to move over to it, and run it, and speak with the dollar the wrong way again. Mine won't be behind it, at all.

RoadWarrior, on Jan 8, 2010 - 05:33 PM, said:

Honestly, dont game Devs care about fighting cheating?! The service that PBBans and other anti-cheat sites provide is invaluable, they have to know that PB by itself does almost NOTHING to stop hackers. Ill never understand why Devs dont ever give us everything we want and need when developing a game. If i cannot stream my server to PBBans, i seriously dont think my Clan will be getting a BC2 server. This is ridiculous.

So much for BF:BC2.

A lot of game developers think PB by itself does the job and that's as far as they look into it. They pay EvenBalance to incorporate PB and they expect them to handle the anti-cheat in the game.

This is all because of ranked games and DICE has put the security of the rank system above everything else. Players whined about padding, modded servers etc and this is the price they will have to pay to have protection against it.

Padding is meh, you can do it in just about any game that has stats involved. Not too hard to figure out.

Modded servers (particularly those that inflate scores to the millions) could have been rendered ineffective by a simple check when the stats came back to their servers throwing out anything outrageous. It wouldn't have been 100% effective since people would have just pushed to that limit, but it would have eliminated the 1 million point jumps. It only took them 3 years to implement this.