BI must be provides the basic ANTI-TK system, not a script

[Mirudes 1]

[snip...]1d. I'm a server admin. I have complete control over what missions I run, what code in the missions I run and full admin powers. I could use the HC to hack on my own server but it's a complete waste of time. I'll go ahead and use proving grounds and only see the addaction if I'm logged in or by UID so my other admins don't know..[snap...]

Proving Ground for ArmA 3

Just for the records: That "Mission" is constructed like a cheating console. I think it wouldn't make sense to use this "sp-mission" inside of a mp-mission. It is a knowing fact that it is used by cheaters for the multiplayer. It was created with the tools from BIS and is contributed here in this forum.

Bohemia Interactive Studios - what's wrong with you? Do you love cheaters more than innocent players? What more is needed?

[dm 9]

Bohemia Interactive Studios - what's wrong with you? Do you love cheaters more than innocent players? What more is needed?

Theres nothing wrong with them (well, there might be on a person-to-person level, but that is a WHOLE different topic ;) )

BI does not like cheaters - they would not have implemented BattlEye or Degradeâ„¢ if they did. But, unlike every other mainstream game out there, they still support modding. If that means some security issues then so be it.

They are not going to pander to your whining and remove all modding and mission making capability from the game just to satisfy your anti-cheater lust.

[galzohar 31]

There are a lot of things (mostly optional ones) that BIS should probably have in the game that can be created by the community. This may be one of them (as in, a module you can place in a mission and configure to deal with team killers), but it's far from the most important one, considering how easy it is to create/use such a script if you're already capable enough to make a mission that is anywhere near worth playing.

In short: Needed? Yes, if optional as a module. Important? Not nearly as much as other things.

What we could use is scripting commands for kicking and checking for who is the admin in an easy-to-use fashion (which could later be used by the BIS anti-tk module if they choose to make one).

[Mirudes 1]

Theres nothing wrong with them (well, there might be on a person-to-person level, but that is a WHOLE different topic ;) )

BI does not like cheaters - they would not have implemented BattlEye or Degradeâ„¢ if they did. But, unlike every other mainstream game out there, they still support modding. If that means some security issues then so be it.

They are not going to pander to your whining and remove all modding and mission making capability from the game just to satisfy your anti-cheater lust.

Do I have a stalker here?

When you participate here in the discussion, tell your own opinion but don't do statements for the developers, when it is not your job. When you are a BIS-employee, watch your tone please.

Whenever BIS is leaving the modding-capability out of the multiplayer, it is the decision of BIS, but not mine.

There is a risk that all of these horror scenarios become true. Right, I brought this into this discussion and there is probably more to come when Steam is going to be involved: Link

By talking about BI's responsibility, I fear that this discussion will lead to that point, where BI is going to say:

- Sorry, no more mod-support for online gaming with ArmA3. You can use the game how it is, it will be digitally signed and protected with (let's say) BattlEye.

-- Signatures are strong enough, we didn't even need BE anymore...

-- (Because that's the actual status, Alpha release without BE).

- If the player wants more units, there will be some fully supported official DLC's from BIS.

-- Download, pay it and play it @ Steam online.

- Steam could say, we provide you with more digitally signed (semi-official) mods, together with BattlEye or any other AC for a price of: $XX.

-- That could be the end of the non-commercial modding in ArmA.

- When you allow custom mods, you will have to play without BI's official signatures, and have probably no AC for support. Generally a weaker protection.

-- That's the wilderness, where all the scum will come together.

Edited April 17, 2013 by Mirudes

[gossamersolid 155]

He's not posting on behalf of BIS/BISim, he's posting his personal opinions/views. He can say what he wants to say.

If BIS actually removed modding from the game, all the content developers would leave (duh) and the game would fall apart. Without community content developers, this game series would have died by now.

[byrgesen 1]

Im still having a real hard time understanding why you dont just implement the script available and use it if you want?

Thats the beauty of this community and this game, you can do what ever you want :)

So maybe insted of demanding, learn how to use it and use whats already there or help the developers of TK systems make them better.

If modding goes away the game will die completely and all theese years of work on such a great engine will be lost.

We dont want that tbh.

But the idea of an optional TK module is not a bad idea, i just hope its one of the last things they do, as theres a million other things with so much higher priority.

[gossamersolid 155]

I think the problem is people think of ArmA as a regularly designed game.

It's more of a toolset in my eyes. The base content included is more just a sample of what the engine can do.

[chortles 263]

Furthermore, HC will forever remain a stop-gap (or addition to) to the core issue as Xeno said "The engine simulates itself to death, a rice bag falls 200 miles away and while the player will never see it or hear it, it is still simulated on all localities".

And a community that will defend this to the death as "what makes Arma so different (in a positive way) from conventional shooters".

Proving Ground for ArmA 3

Just for the records: That "Mission" is constructed like a cheating console. I think it wouldn't make sense to use this "sp-mission" inside of a mp-mission. It is a knowing fact that it is used by cheaters for the multiplayer. It was created with the tools from BIS and is contributed here in this forum.

Bohemia Interactive Studios - what's wrong with you? Do you love cheaters more than innocent players? What more is needed?

It's not so much "BI loves cheaters more than innocent players" as "BI will cater more for those who want that sort of versatility and 'moddability' than to those who'd rather have anti-cheat at modding's expense"... if you want the latter, go play DayZ standalone.

I think the problem is people think of ArmA as a regularly designed game.

It's more of a toolset in my eyes. The base content included is more just a sample of what the engine can do.

Pretty much this, Rocket was pointing out how much RV3 wasn't designed with anti-cheat in mind... and frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if part of the real reason he had to go standalone with "Arma 2.5" instead of "DayZ standalone on RV4" was because BI would never allow him to lock down RV4 as much as he'd want due to all of the pushback from modders or mission designers who would want the possibility of Proving Ground even at the risk of security exploits.

"That mission is constructed like a cheating console"? That amount of "change the environment in real-time" is the point.

Edited April 17, 2013 by Chortles

[byrgesen 1]

I think the problem is people think of ArmA as a regularly designed game.

It's more of a toolset in my eyes. The base content included is more just a sample of what the engine can do.

One of the best descriptions ive ever heard ;) +1

[zorrobyte 30]

-- Signatures are strong enough, we didn't even need BE anymore...

-- (Because that's the actual status, Alpha release without BE).

Not going to stop anything really, any script kiddie can use a memory hex editor to change what executes when you click a button from the ESC menu in a MP session. Some sort of external anticheat needs to check for blacklisted programs or hooks into the process.

Without community content developers, this game series would have died by now.

Amen. I almost stopped after five minutes of playing A2's campaign as it was so cheesy and would of never touched it again if it wasn't for armaholic.

Bohemia Interactive Studios - what's wrong with you? Do you love cheaters more than innocent players? What more is needed?

There is no bias. BIS makes a product to sell and maybe at the end of the day they make some money.

It's more of a toolset in my eyes. The base content included is more just a sample of what the engine can do.

Arma is the consumer version of VBS, their core product. I may even dare to say that Arma has been in some ways a testbed for VBS as we thrash the hell out of Arma and they backport code along the way.

Moving back to the core discussion of what this thread was intended to discuss..

Arma is developed as a military simulator based off VBS. In real life intentional friendly fire is quite rare or nonexistent. It would not make sense to include sort of "antiTK" or any other casual gaming modules in the game engine as it goes out of scope of a military simulator. I enjoy the fact that Arma is not BF3/CoD/MW3/whatever as the steep learning curve keeps most of the kneejerk pew pew kids away.

From another perspective; BIS already includes antiTK in the core game engine, even back to A1 days! It's up to you to enable it in your mission.

At the end of the day I'm glad BIS makes a product for PC that goes far to support user generated content (that has MP). Quite a rare breed, this Arma thing..

Edited April 19, 2013 by zorrobyte

[chortles 263]

Amen. I almost stopped after five minutes of playing A2's campaign as it was so cheesy and would of never touched it again if it wasn't for armaholic.

Somewhere in there is a joke to be made at the expense of whoever was behind Red Harvest... as I said in the "will Arma 3 replace Arma 2?" thread, Arma 2's great mods were in spite of Arma 2, not because of it. :p

There is no bias. BIS makes a product to sell and maybe at the end of the day they make some money.

Pfft, it's not "maybe", otherwise the series would be dead by now.

Arma is the consumer version of VBS, their core product. I may even dare to say that Arma has been in some ways a testbed for VBS as we thrash the hell out of Arma and they backport code along the way.

I wouldn't say that... there's a bunch of stuff that I would say are pretty different about how Arma and VBS2 work and are designed, and they certainly don't develop in tandem but rather parallel, though in fairness I can see why Arma community modders/mission makers would want some of the stuff in VBS -- that still isn't in Arma -- such as the official 3D editor.

At the end of the day I'm glad BIS makes a product for PC that goes far to support user generated content (that has MP). Quite a rare breed, this Arma thing..

Pretty much what puts Arma over COD and BF for me. :)

What was it that Rocket said in calling for a DayZ standalone, that the Arma series and the Real Virtuality engine weren't designed with competitive PVP/TvT in mind?

[dmarkwick 261]

Arma is the consumer version of VBS, their core product. I may even dare to say that Arma has been in some ways a testbed for VBS as we thrash the hell out of Arma and they backport code along the way.

Two separate companies make ArmA and VBS. There has historically been some mutual swapping between the two, but it is by no means a done deal that advances in one engine make it to the other. Neither company uses the other's results as testbed data.

[chortles 263]

This is correct -- despite the name sharing, the companies are different enough that there's two separate CEOs and it took a whole whopping four years before VBS2 got moved over to the Arma 2 engine, before that it was running on the Arma 1 engine... yes, people who may be new to this, until 2012 (with the 2.0 update) VBS2 was running on the engine of the game that came out in 2006 (Czech) and 2007 (internationally); Arma is not a consumer version of VBS and corresponding VBS is not a military version of Arma.

[adeno1 10]

First of all there has to be a tooltip or something like that about mines. Nearly every teammate runs STRAIGHT to this big red symbols. After 1 mine blows up in the near of them they go to the next until they die or no mine is left. Why should i being punished for this?

[Sealife 22]

Two separate companies make ArmA and VBS. There has historically been some mutual swapping between the two, but it is by no means a done deal that advances in one engine make it to the other. Neither company uses the other's results as testbed data.

Would you care to look at the time line at the right of that page and maybe re adjust your statement about test bed , i dont think there is a problem at all if Bis share with there own sister companies , but i think your post is slightly misleading if not incorrect , given the Basis of the VBS iterations and more so the dates at which the VBS sim adopt the Arma engine , i would say Data and test bed might be a little more shared possibly ?

http://products.bisimulations.com/our-company

Not sure they are exactly seperate but the major shareholders remain at group level too ? but i will say thats a guess not fact by myself.

[Mirudes 1]

[snip]

Moving back to the core discussion of what this thread was intended to discuss..

Arma is developed as a military simulator based off VBS. In real life intentional friendly fire is quite rare or nonexistent. It would not make sense to include sort of "antiTK" or any other casual gaming modules in the game engine as it goes out of scope of a military simulator.[snap]

I did not know that ArmA3 modules must have to be in any way useful with VBS.

But the modular system is known to me. If it would work some day, these modules could be used in certain areas inside a mission.

For example, if you want to create an atmosphere you could set modules for civilian population into individual places in a mission. Because if you fill the whole mission with civil population, it eats the entire computing power.

My suggestion is just to create an anti-TK-module, which can be used 1.) at the respawn 2.) in the base or 3.) around Ammocaches. Maybe someone else has a better idea.

Another suggestion is, that you immediately remove team killers because of their negative score from a running multiplayer.

It has also been said, friendly fire used to be a reastic feature inside a simulation. With a localised module, you can have both: The feature of friendly fire in the operational area and protection against new connected kiddies, who are destroying your base.

First of all there has to be a tooltip or something like that about mines. Nearly every teammate runs STRAIGHT to this big red symbols. After 1 mine blows up in the near of them they go to the next until they die or no mine is left. Why should i being punished for this?

But the example above shows how someone uses the game correctly and laid mines in its function as a sapper (pioneer or combat engineer). Each player has in ArmA3 Mouse hints to the explosives but only one class of players can defuse it with a menu. Inexperienced players are attracted by the hints and approach more and more, because they expect a popup-menu that "Deactivate" or other goodies. If they are killed by their own stupidity, they make even a veteran player to a team killer.

Edited May 11, 2013 by Mirudes