echo comments on Used processor leads to game ban

[–] echo@lemmy.today 0 points 1 month ago (3 children)

In this case they even had a completely different install of Windows. There is simply no way at all that the fingerprint should match. If it did match, then their implementation sucks. Fuck them if they made it that bad intentionally. Better to have to catch and ban the same person 10 times than ban an innocent person even once.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 month ago (2 children)

I can't verify that each CPU has a unique id, the way a network card does (MAC address), but it might be a trade secret, who knows.

As far as banning innocent people, if the math is that one cheater drives away 100 honest players, it's better to ban up to 99 honest players to get to that 1 cheater.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 month ago* (1 child)

A CPU serial number or other ID is more unique than a MAC address, as those can be spoofed, and are not guaranteed to be unique, either. I heard one case of someone tearing their hair out over a mystery network issue, eventually discovering two NICs with the same MAC. And also the case of someone buying a whole pallet of NICs, which turned out to all have the same MAC address.

But I don't think that math checks out. A player driven away might return, but a banned player can't.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 month ago

That pallet of NIC's: oof! I thought there were complicated methods in place to assure that didn't happen.

As for the math, cheating is a problem because it drives players away. Whatever the math is, there is a number of innocent players that could get swept up in a ban that would be acceptable if enough cheaters were also kicked out. I'm not talking morally, just the viability of an online game.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent