I’ve seen some level 3000+ players as far back as months ago, but I think they glitched/exploited that level.
The highest legit levels I have seen are about 500 - 650 or so, 500 is when their icon turns gold.
It’s a real slog at times, but I will sometimes just do the weekly challenges and stop. Timed challenges really make the game feel like a chore.
The game feels really unbalanced as well, so many rounds it’s one team completely stomping the other and it’s not even close.
Often 900 tickets to 0.
My friends and I had an evening like that as well, 3 times our team won by holding all the objectives and the game ended early. That’s no fun.
Side note, games like BF6 that cannot run in Linux are also what keep me from migrating to a Linux distro.
I’d be off Windows in a second if all games ran on it no issues.
Side note, games like BF6 that cannot run in Linux are also what keep me from migrating to a Linux distro. I’d be off Windows in a second if all games ran on it no issues.
For those curious about it: People are working on it (of course Valve has vested interest in this). Unfortunately Corposcum such as Ubisoft, EA or Krafton aren’t interested unless they get complete system control for their overreaching anticheats, and hell freezes over before Linux provides kernel modules for this stuff. Even if every gaming distro would bring DKMS (Dynamic Kernel Module System), that in turn basically breaks Secure Boot (Secure Boot is a Microsoft system - not Linux’ fault). Also the support by Linux devs and distro maintainers would literally be a negative number. Kernel-level anticheat is correctly considered malware.
I think Valve was experimenting with Microkernels and Virtualization or sth… but that’s a long way to go. And those other big corpos will only ever give a fuck once their Investors start seeing Linux as a truly exploitable market.
The game feels really unbalanced as well, so many rounds it’s one team completely stomping the other and it’s not even close. Often 900 tickets to 0.
It’s a miracle how a multi-billion dollar company can consistently fumble matchmaking this badly.
How does DKMS and such break secure boot? If you want to load (custom) kernel modules, just generate a key pair, sign the module yourself, import your MOK into your UEFI (once, assuming you use the same key for all your modules and also keep a backup of your reinstall your system) and secure boot will let you do that.
I’m running current NVIDIA drivers on Linux and that’s basically the setup to use them- and since that is already set up, i’d not even need to to anything specific to get it working for other things.
Note: I do not endorse kernel level anti cheat and would never load such a module, but the infrastructure for it is already there and can be used with secure boot…
How does DKMS and such break secure boot? If you want to load (custom) kernel modules, just generate a key pair, sign the module yourself, import your MOK into your UEFI (once, assuming you use the same key for all your modules and also keep a backup of your reinstall your system) and secure boot will let you do that.
You do realise 99% of people have no clue what the hell you just said and at least 80% will rather stay with the devil they know (Windows) than taking a course in both Linux System Administration + UEFI / Secure Boot configuration?
I’m generally assuming a common user, not a dev with loads of free time. What you describe isn’t just hard and takes a lot of knowledge to fully understand, it’s potentially hazardous on the same level of e.g. editing the fstab or crypttab manually, something a user without deep system knowledge shouldn’t have to do either as it could cause an unbootable state.
I stand by my point, DKMS breaks Secure Boot (as it requires highly technical user intervention on every single update to make the computer boot again, and very deep knowledge to fix it if something goes wrong).
Generally yes, but I wasn’t talking to them. If you switch operating systems, you need to do some work to learn how they work. Yes, Linix could be way more „noob friendly“. Yes, even distributions that make this process as painless as possible (e.g. Fedora that automates everything with akmods) require you to load the generated MOK into your UEFI manually and that looks very scary (by design - it’s usually only a good idea to load a MOK if you know what you’re doing and why as it can break the whole trust concept of secure boot).
The main problem with Linux for mass adoption is IMHO that there’s still many cases that require you to leverage the terminal or edit config files. And to some degree that there isn’t „one official way“ of doing or customizing things. Yes it’s cool to be able to do all those things and to have the freedom, but I also respect people that just want it to work and not need to tinker everywhere.
I would guess it would break it in that people holding out on switching until every game they play is as simple to run in Linux as they are in Windows would probably consider that a deal breaking amount if work compared to staying on Windows.
I feel there’s a trust problem here. I’m no Windows dev, so I don’t know all the details, but since MS enforces secure boot, they have to play by the rules: Only trusted code can be executed with very high (kernel level) privileges. That’s one of the reasons why they want to enforce signed binaries. Especially for drivers and other stuff.
On Windows that means only entities that MS trusts are allowed to execute high privileged code. Otherwise you wouldn’t get your binaries signed by MS (or co-signed, or white-listed or whatever aproach they take in this scenario) and without signature, no execution. You need to trust MS, but you need to trust them anyways, as they control the chain of trust on boot and also create the very kernel you’re running on. If they wanted to cheat you, it’s be easy for them.
On Linux it’s a bit different. Linux has the aproach that any user with root privileges is trustworthy. That’s good for me, as I get a say on what runs on my hardware and how it runs. But for the anti cheat vendor that’s now a huge problem, because a random person is now the one controlling the kernel, its integrity and the chain of trust on boot. Worse: It’s usually the very person they’re trying to observe if they’re cheating. But how do you do this, if they (theoretically) have full control over the kernel and can run arbitrary kernel modules?
Now, I’m not saying that there’s no trust in the Linux kernel and Windows were more secure - just that there are completely different assumptions about trust and trust boundaries that may lead to severe headaches for the anti cheat vendors.
I’ve seen some level 3000+ players as far back as months ago, but I think they glitched/exploited that level.
The highest legit levels I have seen are about 500 - 650 or so, 500 is when their icon turns gold.
It’s a real slog at times, but I will sometimes just do the weekly challenges and stop. Timed challenges really make the game feel like a chore.
The game feels really unbalanced as well, so many rounds it’s one team completely stomping the other and it’s not even close. Often 900 tickets to 0.
My friends and I had an evening like that as well, 3 times our team won by holding all the objectives and the game ended early. That’s no fun.
Side note, games like BF6 that cannot run in Linux are also what keep me from migrating to a Linux distro. I’d be off Windows in a second if all games ran on it no issues.
For those curious about it: People are working on it (of course Valve has vested interest in this). Unfortunately Corposcum such as Ubisoft, EA or Krafton aren’t interested unless they get complete system control for their overreaching anticheats, and hell freezes over before Linux provides kernel modules for this stuff. Even if every gaming distro would bring DKMS (Dynamic Kernel Module System), that in turn basically breaks Secure Boot (Secure Boot is a Microsoft system - not Linux’ fault). Also the support by Linux devs and distro maintainers would literally be a negative number. Kernel-level anticheat is correctly considered malware.
I think Valve was experimenting with Microkernels and Virtualization or sth… but that’s a long way to go. And those other big corpos will only ever give a fuck once their Investors start seeing Linux as a truly exploitable market.
It’s a miracle how a multi-billion dollar company can consistently fumble matchmaking this badly.
How does DKMS and such break secure boot? If you want to load (custom) kernel modules, just generate a key pair, sign the module yourself, import your MOK into your UEFI (once, assuming you use the same key for all your modules and also keep a backup of your reinstall your system) and secure boot will let you do that.
I’m running current NVIDIA drivers on Linux and that’s basically the setup to use them- and since that is already set up, i’d not even need to to anything specific to get it working for other things.
Note: I do not endorse kernel level anti cheat and would never load such a module, but the infrastructure for it is already there and can be used with secure boot…
You do realise 99% of people have no clue what the hell you just said and at least 80% will rather stay with the devil they know (Windows) than taking a course in both Linux System Administration + UEFI / Secure Boot configuration? I’m generally assuming a common user, not a dev with loads of free time. What you describe isn’t just hard and takes a lot of knowledge to fully understand, it’s potentially hazardous on the same level of e.g. editing the fstab or crypttab manually, something a user without deep system knowledge shouldn’t have to do either as it could cause an unbootable state.
I stand by my point, DKMS breaks Secure Boot (as it requires highly technical user intervention on every single update to make the computer boot again, and very deep knowledge to fix it if something goes wrong).
Generally yes, but I wasn’t talking to them. If you switch operating systems, you need to do some work to learn how they work. Yes, Linix could be way more „noob friendly“. Yes, even distributions that make this process as painless as possible (e.g. Fedora that automates everything with
akmods) require you to load the generated MOK into your UEFI manually and that looks very scary (by design - it’s usually only a good idea to load a MOK if you know what you’re doing and why as it can break the whole trust concept of secure boot).The main problem with Linux for mass adoption is IMHO that there’s still many cases that require you to leverage the terminal or edit config files. And to some degree that there isn’t „one official way“ of doing or customizing things. Yes it’s cool to be able to do all those things and to have the freedom, but I also respect people that just want it to work and not need to tinker everywhere.
I would guess it would break it in that people holding out on switching until every game they play is as simple to run in Linux as they are in Windows would probably consider that a deal breaking amount if work compared to staying on Windows.
I feel there’s a trust problem here. I’m no Windows dev, so I don’t know all the details, but since MS enforces secure boot, they have to play by the rules: Only trusted code can be executed with very high (kernel level) privileges. That’s one of the reasons why they want to enforce signed binaries. Especially for drivers and other stuff.
On Windows that means only entities that MS trusts are allowed to execute high privileged code. Otherwise you wouldn’t get your binaries signed by MS (or co-signed, or white-listed or whatever aproach they take in this scenario) and without signature, no execution. You need to trust MS, but you need to trust them anyways, as they control the chain of trust on boot and also create the very kernel you’re running on. If they wanted to cheat you, it’s be easy for them.
On Linux it’s a bit different. Linux has the aproach that any user with root privileges is trustworthy. That’s good for me, as I get a say on what runs on my hardware and how it runs. But for the anti cheat vendor that’s now a huge problem, because a random person is now the one controlling the kernel, its integrity and the chain of trust on boot. Worse: It’s usually the very person they’re trying to observe if they’re cheating. But how do you do this, if they (theoretically) have full control over the kernel and can run arbitrary kernel modules?
Now, I’m not saying that there’s no trust in the Linux kernel and Windows were more secure - just that there are completely different assumptions about trust and trust boundaries that may lead to severe headaches for the anti cheat vendors.