PB Insights and a question

(evilsock) #1

OK, so this is SD’s ET forum and I’m about to quote from RtCW - sorry - I just noticed this on RtCW first. I had reason to install a second copy of RtCW on my hard drive the other day (for some reason, my mp_depot.bsp file had become corrupted from within the main .pak file so I needed to replace it - the whole pak file in the end)

As I had the original un-patched version installed and had seen a few servers running old protocols, I decided to patch to 1.1 and have a game to see what it was like. I was astonished - of course version 1.1 is pre PunkBuster and that was the first thing I noted - just how much smoother my connection was without it. The server seemed to be populated by Wolf n00bs (which is a rarity) and so not only was I able to roam around the maps headshotting at will, I noticed within 5 minutes just how much bandwidth PB can take up.

It’s weird because I played RtCW from 1.0 up to it’s current patch of 1.41 and I’d forgotten just how much ‘purer’ the game is pre 1.33 - I don’t even think they had proper antilag code in place in the first couple of patches. I couldn’t get over just how much more ‘controllable’ my lag was - I had a great time :slight_smile:

Anyways, I quit out of relic wolf and went to my 1.41 install and took a look in the /pb folder to checkout my log file. I understand now why on some servers with my dial-up, it’s almost impossible to have a ‘steady’ connection (I set my PB_SLEEP to 350 btw) - the log is littered with .png requests - LOADS of them. I’ve never bothered setting PB_SSSAVE to one before so I’m not sure exactly what screenies are being grabbed but ffs, on some servers it looks like they have it setup to take ‘auto-shots’ every few minutes! What chance have I got of getting a decent game with server side configs that cater only for hight-speed connections?

On a slightly more realistic note - I have a question for you - In the pbsslog.htm file, the format runs like this;

0506 (Not Saved) pb000028.png [15:40:47] MD5=E6C6B8CEE1B87CF8DE57261DFD9D8572 xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:xxxxx <servername>

So that shows me that a .png was requested (followed by hundreds at very small, regular intervals)

When I was trawling through this, I saw the following entry;

1108 (Not Saved) pb000089.png [22:06:50] MD5=CA822B4C6D42DFEB938A3C6A07857BEC bot

Notice the ‘bot’ @ the end where I would normally see an IP:Port <servername> entry?

Does anyone know what that is? Has it anything to do with PB_SV_Specname - i.e. a bot is present on the server, responsible for automatically taking screeniies fom players?

I have no choice but to get along with PB as it’s a useful thing to stop smacktards cheating, but has it really got to the stage where actually the majority of ppl with Internet access (dial-up) are being penalised in terms of the bandwidth requirements of PB for cheaters?

WTF am I doing posting a Wolf question on SD’s ET forum? Well it applies just as much to ET as it does any PB enabled game.

(DG) #2

PB_SV_Specname [text]
If a special spectator client “bot” is used on the server, this setting should hold the player name corresponding to that client so that the PB Server will know this is not a real player; if the player with this name ever has a non-zero score, the “special” status is lost

AKA: players who have joined the server and are spectator, having not yet joined a team.

If you dont like the bandwidth consumption of PB, play on non-PB servers. It’s either worth it or it isnt, and you do get to choose. PB also slows it down by scanning memory, using CPU cycles… It’s how it works, you cant have PB and yet not have it use resources.

56k might be majority of internet users, but I really doubt they’re majority of online FPS gamers (at least in UK). Do /players in console, see how many have a rate lower than 5000. I find it very rare to be more than two out of all 20 players, and much more normal to be one or none.

(Homer J) #3

It’s a shame Evenbalance took down their forums. Maybe they would have been able to shed some light on it. Have you tried emailing them?

Like, is itthe server admin asking for screenshots every few mins or is PB re-requesting failed screenshots. Having seen the number of screenshots that fail for broadband users I wouldn’t be suprised if a dialup user never got a complete screenshot to the server.

I have noticed it getting progressivcely hadrder to get a decent connection on dialup to the extent that I have given up and I know others have too.

(evilsock) #4

DG, you must be one of those Nazi game admins that’s taken to wearing girly knickers that are two sizes too small and pinch at the thighs - that’s the only explanation I have right now for your numbnuts reply.

I’ve already visited the evenbalance site and checked out the cvar - I wouldn’t be asking about it if I was sure about the explanation - any fool can cut and paste btw. As far as your answer goes, what exactly are you saying? Take the reefer out of your mouth, set down the jug of vodka to the floor and think for a moment about your post and it’s sum contribution to answering my question - that’s right, you didn’t help at all. The only thing you actually managed was to assume that I’m some kind of idiot and do not already realise I have free will and can choose to ‘PB’ or not to ‘PB’.

The log is my client log, I wanted to understand exactly what the bot log information meant - I didn’t know if it just meant that there was a bot on the server requesting a screenshot and the request was showing up in my log file - I also wanted to make sure that this was normal, you know, and make sure there wasn’t anything ‘odd’ about it - thanks for your advice and help on this, I’m non the wiser.

I think there’s a growing trend towards automating .png requests as paranoia levels run ever higher about the 1% of ppl who actually cheat - remember, PB (like Norton, Sophos and others) have a vested interest in raising the profile of cheaters - it’s vital to them that you take seriously the threat of cheaters - after all, they’re getting paid for it

(DG) #5

rofl.

(evilsock) #6

heh - rumbled :slight_smile:

(pgh) #7

Sigh… lag bitch, lag. :]

(Fusen) #8

=O two sizes too small?! wouldnt even think of trying to picture that

Portable Vaporizers