Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register | PSU Social |
PSU: I'm not aloud to talk to strangers online.
Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register | PSU Social |
Home | Forum | Chat | Wiki | Social | AGN | PS2 Stats |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
2012-06-20, 04:05 AM | [Ignore Me] #19 | |||
Colonel
|
I don't mind VAC, but I personally think it's bullshit saying it's actually any better.
__________________
|
|||
|
2012-06-20, 04:49 AM | [Ignore Me] #20 | ||
Cheats/Hacks get blown out of proportion in my opinion. Unprotected servers will have lots of hackers. But put any sort of anticheat in and that drops hackers down to a minimum.
I've played allot of games over the years and never found the hacker problem to be anywhere near as bad as the doomsayers make it out to be. At worst it is a minor annoyance that is easily dealt with by an admin or moving to a different server. Correct me if I'm wrong but VAC I believe is reactive banning someone after the fact. I've never liked this as the damage is already done by this point. The hacker has ruined you game and possibly you server. PB on the over hand kicks them out as soon as it finds something so has always been my preference. Last edited by Rabb; 2012-06-20 at 04:50 AM. |
|||
|
2012-06-20, 04:51 AM | [Ignore Me] #21 | |||
Sergeant Major
|
VAC requires steam right? I don't think they want to exclusively publish on Steam.
I thinK VAC is better simply because it doesn't cause as much lag and issues and AFAIK if you get banned from one VAC game you are banned from all VAC secured games? Last edited by I SandRock; 2012-06-20 at 04:52 AM. |
|||
|
2012-06-20, 04:55 AM | [Ignore Me] #22 | |||
Major General
|
|
|||
|
2012-06-20, 04:58 AM | [Ignore Me] #23 | ||
Major General
|
they should ninja tie SOE accounts to steam so anybody dumb enough to run hacks on their SOE account get their steam account banned....they should not advertise this though, just ninja ban their steam accounts all in a large batch like 6 months after release. hilarity would be insured.
|
||
|
2012-06-20, 04:59 AM | [Ignore Me] #24 | |||
Colonel
|
PB can also ban you from all PB protected games, but somewhy not that many games seem to utilize that for whatever reason. Back when I played America's Army 2, our server would stream some PB ban lists. Basically all kinds of PB protected servers would "upload" the PB GUIDs they have banned online and other servers would download these and run checks based on them. So if you were banned on a server of another game that streamed their bans and we used the same ban stream, you would get booted out of our server as well. Other thing is when we compare most VAC secured games to APB for example. Most of these games are small servers owned by an individual or a small group, and they have some admins/mods around nearly always. APB then again does not have an admin/GM/mod/whatever for each of it's districts. These small servers will easily seem more cheaterfree, cos theres often the server owner who can take care of shit. I admit APB has it's own special problem with cheaters (something PS2 will face too), but when I compare similar games (say, 64 player servers in "normal shooters), the experience is pretty much identical on both PB and VAC secured servers. Brink used both VAC and PB and it still had plenty of cheaters
__________________
|
|||
|
2012-06-20, 05:06 AM | [Ignore Me] #26 | ||
Sergeant Major
|
I don't see the relevance in this argument you keep bringing up. Just because a game has cheaters while using anti-cheat protection doesn't mean anything? What is your point with that? We should stop using anti-cheat all together?
I think both VAC and PB probably protect against hackers equally. But in the end of the day what matters is that: Every single game I've seen use PB has had problems the first one or two months, problems that lead to unplayability of the game. And most servers would turn PB off during this period. I've never seen these problems with VAC. But I don't see PS2 going to steam exclusively. And there is no good alternative to PB. So were stuck with it. |
||
|
2012-06-20, 05:10 AM | [Ignore Me] #28 | |||
Colonel
|
Then for those who say that the 247 admin presence is better than any anti cheat.. Not really. It only catches those blatant cases. An observing admin won't catch someone who has set his aimbot so that he makes no visible snaps. With a loooooooooooooooooooong period of observing you might get a good hunch that this player is either super smart and lucky or is using a wallhack, but who will take the risk of banning a legit paying customer on that hunch? GMs are very expensive and very inefficient and will only catch the blatant cases, which tbh shouldnt be a problem for the anticheat (even if they still sometimes are though). I still hope for smart netcode that basically doesnt allow for anything else than aimbot and wallhack. BF3 is a good example of how to fuck up in that department, when you have a guy without LOS killing the entire server from his own spawn. Sandrock, the BRINK thing was mainly a lighthearted joke, not so much of an argument. I miss Brink, sucks it died As for the rest, well, I realize I'm probably amongst the luckiest to never have had any real issues with PB. I've had to manually update it twice in the course of 6-7 years. Took me a few minutes tops.
__________________
Last edited by Coreldan; 2012-06-20 at 05:12 AM. |
|||
|
2012-06-20, 05:41 AM | [Ignore Me] #29 | |||
Also since PS2 won't be running through Steam it [VAC] won't be an option. |
||||
|
2012-06-20, 08:08 AM | [Ignore Me] #30 | ||
First Sergeant
|
VAC only protects well if it's implemented well in the game its being used in. It's not a magic bullet. If they don't bother (Brink), it won't work well.
Also, as for the bans, it doesn't ban immediately because it does delayed VAC bans to ban from playing the game multiplayer at all, and the point of the delay is so that the cheaters might not be able to figure out what it was specifically that tipped off VAC. |
||
|
|
Bookmarks |
|
|