ZOS- Its time to for a Real Client Side Anti-Cheat with Memeory Scanning Capabilities

RinaldoGandolphi

I suggest none other then Punkbuster

PunkBuster proudly features:

15+ years of experience in the anti-cheat business
Support for all major and many proprietary game engines
Game specific cheat research and detection
Real-time, continuous memory scanning during gameplay
Environment modification detection
Background auto-updates
Cross-platform support (Windows, Linux, Mac)
Administrative tools (screen shots, ban lists, s

http://www.evenbalance.com/

It functions very much like Steam VAC system..it watches and monitors what users do, and once things reach a certain threshold, it takes action against their accounts. They also have a staff with over 15 years worth of expereince dealing with cheaters in online games. DICE among others use them, sure it don't stop every hack, but they have been good at putting the kabosh on hackers that do get past their automated systems, and updating their client software reg to address folks getting around it.

If not Punkbuster, we need something else...We need something that is ALWAYS scanning memory and knows all the latest cheats and has heuristics in place that when something fishy is going on or Punkbuster sees a new program hooking the game it don't recognize, that file is hashed and a copy of it is uploaded to Punkbuster for further investigation, this is how these new cheats are found and dealt with.

I know you folks are doing the best you can, but this is long past overdue...there needs to be something Client Side thats watching whats going on memory and taking action as need, and identifying new cheats as they come....Punkbuster is the Equivalent of Trend Micro's Smart Protection Network, unknown files are uploaded to be investigated and known cheats that return a successful query from the cloud are banned right then and there, yes it may cost a little money, but it will be worth it to the longterm health of the game, if you don't use punkbuster there are other options that work sorta the same way, but something needs to be done.

the good thing about Punkbuster is it works on MAC and Linux as well as Windows so you can cover all 3 platforms with one system.

Look at all the Triple A Titles on the mainpage that use Punkbuster, the results speak for themselves..its stops 9 out of 10 cheats, the 10% that do get past it can be dealt with on a case by case basis.

Minno

It's time.

kuro-dono

i would love this. very much so.

kuro-dono

its shame we been running 2 year with all kind of *** and amigos ruining the fun for rest of us who arent borderline cheating/exploiting/abusing.

Celas_Dranacea

Thank you for your post. I personally haven't run into these issues that much but really hate that cheating exists in ESO.

Punk buster seems good. I also think a "physical" presence of some kind of game master would really improve the fairness and sportsmanship of pvp. I just think of my recreational soccer league - we pay fees so we can have a professional referee at each game.

I would love these game masters to be able to get a report about some problem player, then start following that person in game, look at the messages their client is sending, determine if they are cheating. Whatever makes sense - I have no idea how programming works.

However, I'm reflecting on the economical feasibility of this for zos. Imagine we had a GM for each campaign 16 hours a day, 5 out of 7 days a week. Just for the sake of an example here's some math:

2 GM each campaign at $50k a year salary x 4 campaigns = $400,000 not counting workers comp, benefits etc. That's roughly equivalent to $2,222 annual subscriptions ($15x12 months = $180) Pretty steep price!

We should think about this question of how to feasibly implement better oversight in terms of cost as well as impact to the servers and get back to ZOS with our ideas. I leave it to y'all with a better understanding of how this could work.

rfennell_ESO

Agree. Totally.

No mmo with pvp should launch without it.

themdogesbite

Punkbuster was utterly useless for the most of the time in other games, it was one of the easiest AC's to bypass in cod4 for example and did more harm then good.

InvitationNotFound

no.
fix it on the server.

i don't see a reason for anything on the client side. it is possible to bypass everything on the client, just a matter of effort. and the next time something is fishy, people will appear and say "hey, we have punkbuster so they can't cheat". bull****.

just another bunch of crapware running on your machine even it isn't necessary in this case.

a little side note:
just because some ulti spamming is over, doesn't mean nobody is cheating anymore (in a more subtle way).

RinaldoGandolphi

you can't fix everything server side it's not feasible with TCP.

The fix is securing both sides and a system like Punkbuster or something similar is just one rung on a ladder of everything that needs to be done on both sides to stop this nonsense.

You will never stop cheating with just server side changes. unless you want another lighting patch that will kill Cyrodiil for good this time. The lighting patch butchered Cyrodiil performance the last thing we need is a repeat of that, the servers can't handle that anti cheat now putting anymore on them will render pvp 100% unplayable

zyk

It's been a while since I read up on this topic, but the last time I did, VAC (Valve Anti-Cheat) was my clear preference.

Rohamad_Ali

I don't know enough about it to agree or disagree . I know it's been glitchy in the past on APB Reloaded and just started booting everyone for no reason an the company there stated it was still buggy . But that was way back 6 years ago . Maybe they got it sorted since then .

Minno

RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »

you can't fix everything server side it's not feasible with TCP.

The fix is securing both sides and a system like Punkbuster or something similar is just one rung on a ladder of everything that needs to be done on both sides to stop this nonsense.

You will never stop cheating with just server side changes. unless you want another lighting patch that will kill Cyrodiil for good this time. The lighting patch butchered Cyrodiil performance the last thing we need is a repeat of that, the servers can't handle that anti cheat now putting anymore on them will render pvp 100% unplayable

Correct. The fix must be clientside to help limit additional lag.

rfennell_ESO

RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »

you can't fix everything server side it's not feasible with TCP.

The fix is securing both sides and a system like Punkbuster or something similar is just one rung on a ladder of everything that needs to be done on both sides to stop this nonsense.

You will never stop cheating with just server side changes. unless you want another lighting patch that will kill Cyrodiil for good this time. The lighting patch butchered Cyrodiil performance the last thing we need is a repeat of that, the servers can't handle that anti cheat now putting anymore on them will render pvp 100% unplayable

Eh, steam anti hack and Blizzard's warden don't make the game unplayable.

RinaldoGandolphi

zyk wrote: »

It's been a while since I read up on this topic, but the last time I did, VAC (Valve Anti-Cheat) was my clear preference.

I would be fine with that as well, its just we need far more then we have right now.

RinaldoGandolphi

rfennell_ESO wrote: »

RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »

you can't fix everything server side it's not feasible with TCP.

The fix is securing both sides and a system like Punkbuster or something similar is just one rung on a ladder of everything that needs to be done on both sides to stop this nonsense.

You will never stop cheating with just server side changes. unless you want another lighting patch that will kill Cyrodiil for good this time. The lighting patch butchered Cyrodiil performance the last thing we need is a repeat of that, the servers can't handle that anti cheat now putting anymore on them will render pvp 100% unplayable

Eh, steam anti hack and Blizzard's warden don't make the game unplayable.

Yes but Blizzard's server and client side software doesn't have the limitations ESO has either. There are vast differences in how the two are structured. Prior to the lighting patch ESO was money, after they put in that hamfisted attempt to get rid of bots, it butchered PVP performance...the game can't afford another solution like that or it will be finished for good this time.

SirAndy

RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »

I suggest none other then Punkbuster

Or they could simply re-write the client/server code so it doesn't have to trust the client anymore. You know, the thing they should have done in the first place.

RinaldoGandolphi

SirAndy wrote: »

RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »

I suggest none other then Punkbuster

Or they could simply re-write the client/server code so it doesn't have to trust the client anymore. You know, the thing they should have done in the first place.

True but in that case you go with a UDP Netcode of course which would also help the lag, but again thats a huge investment of money that im not sure ZOS is willing to do.

please understand, what you suggest would be what i would prefer, but i doubt they are willing to do that at this stage of ESO life. I'll still hold out hope they will though.

GreenSoup2HoT

If Zos had punkbuster, wouldn't that mean we can go back to a more client side game and have less lag (Since punkbuster can take care of BOT's. ) ?

RinaldoGandolphi

GreenSoup2HoT wrote: »

If Zos had punkbuster, wouldn't that mean we can go back to a more client side game and have less lag (Since punkbuster can take care of BOT's. ) ?

Perhaps, depending on how much ZOS is willing to invest in people to ban cheaters who find ways around Punkbuster/VAC, and to stick to those bans...no solution is perfect mind you.

Punkbuster or Valve VAC would be the way to go, they both work sorta similiar

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valve_Anti-Cheat

Valve rarely discusses the software, as it may help cheaters write new code or conduct social engineering.[20]

The software sends client challenges to the machine, if the appropriate response is not received, it is flagged as a possible violation. It uses heuristics to detect possible cheats when scanning the computer's memory and processes, an incident report is created whenever an anomaly is detected, it is then compared to a database of banned applications and/or analyzed by Valve's engineers. The engineers may inspect the code and run it on their own copies of the game. If the code is confirmed as a new cheat, it is added to the database of cheat codes.[23][24]

According to Steam's lead engineer John Cook, to stop the anti-cheat software itself from being exploited, "The software is constantly updated and sent down in small portions for the servers as needed, so hackers only get to see small portions of it running at any particular time. So while they may be able to work around pieces of it, they can never hack everything."[24]

Valve also accepts submissions of cheat programs and cheat websites from players through the official Steam Forums. Players may also report players they suspect of cheating through their Steam Community profile, although players are not banned from these reports alone.[25]

If a cheat is found, the player's Steam account will be flagged as cheating immediately, but the player will not receive any indication of the detection. It is only after a delay of "days or even weeks"[4] that the account is permanently banned from "VAC Secure" servers[25] for that game, possibly along with other games that use the same engine. (e.g. Valve's Source games, GoldSrc games, Unreal engine games). Valve never discloses which cheat was detected. Players have criticised the system for taking weeks to months to ban cheaters.[26]

Large numbers of flagged accounts may also be banned in "waves".

Punkbuster sorta works in the same way, it does have a client installed on the PC, but it has a server component to as far as i know and cheats that do get past it may remain undetected for awhile but like VAC eventually you get banned at some point after the system detects something "fishy" but might not match an actual known cheat.

SirAndy

RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »

True but in that case you go with a UDP Netcode of course which would also help the lag, but again thats a huge investment of money that im not sure ZOS is willing to do.
please understand, what you suggest would be what i would prefer, but i doubt they are willing to do that at this stage of ESO life. I'll still hold out hope they will though.

I agree, i doubt ZOS will consider re-writing the netcode. It would neither be quick nor cheap.

JamilaRaj

RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »

the good thing about Punkbuster is it works on MAC and Linux as well as Windows so you can cover all 3 platforms with one system.

No, they can not, because they do not make Linux client, therefore on Linux, one would have to run Windows client with Windows Punkbuster, which would almost certainly fail miserably and make the game unplayable (on top of being unplayable due to other reasons).
Also, the very idea of incorruptible client-side software to prevent corruption of a client does not strike me as very sound, though admittedly implied voodoo might appeal to corporate execs.

Soris

add mouse/keybord macro protection as well

frozywozy

I have played a tons of games that run with Punkbuster such as Battlefield 4 in the past and they do a great job at handling hackers. We still see them, but not to ruin your entire gameplay and make you look for something else to play.

Emma_Overload

NO to this. The last thing ESO needs is some 3rd party software introducing a new failure point to their already buggy game.

Ban cheaters if you must, ZOS, but FIX your game so these exploits aren't possible!

Ghostbane

Emma_Eunjung wrote: »

NO to this. The last thing ESO needs is some 3rd party software introducing a new failure point to their already buggy game.

Ban cheaters if you must, ZOS, but FIX your game so these exploits aren't possible!

The majority of the time a third party enclosure system is the fix for the game.

outsideworld76

And fix the lag please.

DaveMoeDee

Celas_Dranacea wrote: »

Thank you for your post. I personally haven't run into these issues that much but really hate that cheating exists in ESO.

Punk buster seems good. I also think a "physical" presence of some kind of game master would really improve the fairness and sportsmanship of pvp. I just think of my recreational soccer league - we pay fees so we can have a professional referee at each game.

I would love these game masters to be able to get a report about some problem player, then start following that person in game, look at the messages their client is sending, determine if they are cheating. Whatever makes sense - I have no idea how programming works.

However, I'm reflecting on the economical feasibility of this for zos. Imagine we had a GM for each campaign 16 hours a day, 5 out of 7 days a week. Just for the sake of an example here's some math:

2 GM each campaign at $50k a year salary x 4 campaigns = $400,000 not counting workers comp, benefits etc. That's roughly equivalent to $2,222 annual subscriptions ($15x12 months = $180) Pretty steep price!

We should think about this question of how to feasibly implement better oversight in terms of cost as well as impact to the servers and get back to ZOS with our ideas. I leave it to y'all with a better understanding of how this could work.

ZOS would also have to spend money to build into Cyrodiil a tool to make GMs useful beyond just sending messages in zone chat, responding to filed reports, and doing real-time temporary bans.

You don't need separate GMs for each campaign. It isn't like they need to be in a campaign. The campaigns are way too large for a single person to eyeball and eyeballing would be way to subjective anyway. Having a GM log in as a disembodied alliance less camera that can teleport around has very limited value, especially when we know that what we see on clients may not be what really happened for many reasons.

Arthg

Whatever works, man, really.

'Cause right now there's still a bunch of rotten apples on the tree and it seems the fekkin' gardener is armed with a pair of friggin' blunt scissors, blindly snipping ripe and rotten fruit.

Docmandu

RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »

you can't fix everything server side it's not feasible with TCP.

Lol... amusing.. but please next time refrain from giving remarks like this, clearly shows you don't really know what you're saying here. TCP or UDP or SCTP or any other network protocol has nothing to-do with server side validation.

RinaldoGandolphi

Docmandu wrote: »

RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »

you can't fix everything server side it's not feasible with TCP.

Lol... amusing.. but please next time refrain from giving remarks like this, clearly shows you don't really know what you're saying here. TCP or UDP or SCTP or any other network protocol has nothing to-do with server side validation.

I never said it did, but it sure has a lot to do with performance see the lighting patch dealing with bots as proof positive. Got rid of the bots alright, and butchered performance in the process

I wrote a very long detailed post about how UDP could cut overhead in this game in half simply due to less packets to process.

Any sane person writes validation checks server side and set certain parameters that are in acceptable ranges, but ESO seems to do more client side then many thought, I knew it done some client side but never to this scale

SirAndy

Docmandu wrote: »

Lol... amusing.. but please next time refrain from giving remarks like this, clearly shows you don't really know what you're saying here. TCP or UDP or SCTP or any other network protocol has nothing to-do with server side validation.

@Docmandu
Actually, i does.

I worked on several game engines and very high traffic enterprise level client/server systems. There are many advantages of using UDP over TCP that can actually help a lot to improve the performance of such a system.