Do You want PunkBuster in Armed Assault?

[Dwarden 1125]

If I didn't know better i'd say Dwarden is getting paid by Evenbalance as a forum Punkbuster PR guy. And a big NO to PB in ArmA for all the same reasons mentioned already. Plus the fact that the owner and founder of Evenbalance has a really bad attitude (he's a complete jackass) towards people that doesn't think PB is the best thing since sliced bread.

trust me i would love to be paid for all this lol

anyway what i wrote is based upon exp with PB, EBI staff as both game servers admin and user ...

i'm fully aware that well done game server coding can drop number of cheats (like ammo counter validation, position, speed validations, animations speeds (triggers delays))

but even if You rule out all possible to be server side then what stays are client side cheats and that's the hole PB plugs

about Tony (if that's the owner who is jackass) You speak about ...

anytime i got chance to discuss with him it was fine talk and i never noticed he being rude or arrogant...

maybe You know him better ... or You just heard this story told by wind ?

in the end PB is great additional asset against cheating

(in moment there is better tool be sure i consider switch)

but needs to be combined with excelent gameserver software, well done gameclient and 24/7 administration ...

re: Walker

stop using google search as argument as it merges various issues to look like one ...

[Moebius 0]

From personal experience, I don't necessarily like it because people were getting kicked from our servers for no reason, some sort of bug. Then others couldn't even log on because it said they were using stuff when I was sitting right next to them and I know they didn't cheat or get banned or anything like that. It was just selective PMS on the side of PB.

[HellToupee 0]

By your own admission PB works on regular patches, so same as I am suggesting but PB adds in another layer of bureaucracy. In other words:

Cheat made> Cheat spotted> Inform game Devs> Inform PB> PB solves <> test with Game Developer <> Approved by both> release patch.

Cheat made> Cheat spotted> Inform game Devs> game developer solves> test with Game Developer> Approved> release patch.

You can see for your self which is shorter and cheaper for the game devs.

Solution for TKs and griefers is separate.

Suggested solution by myself and others:

Admin package: Existing server solutions applied EXISTS, Keg's observer script EXISTS, Set of punishment scripts EXISTS, Log file generation Please BIS!, TK logging EXISTS, and a Neural Net that learns what is cheating behaviour Needs building and teaching,

Half that already exists in the community the rest is easily doable. The only thing BIS need to create is admin log file creation, and it would all be cheaper for BIS to gather together and make into a package than BIS paying PB for a license plus annual fee and per patch fee, pay PB to play on patched servers etc or however PB decides to do its charge model in the future.

Kind Regards walker

PB patches dont go through game devs, like anti virus updates dont go thru microsoft.

Game patches are not something u can release nearly as frequently as pb updates, pb updates sometimes daily. Game updates is not a practical counter to cheats.

Quote[/b] ]and a Neural Net that learns what is cheating behaviour Needs building and teaching,

yea neural net easy peasy why dont they just make skynet while their at it.

Easy to talk about being cheaper easyer etc but anti cheat is a full time job pretty much, PB has prooven to be the best there is thats why its used in most of the popular games.

[shataan 1]

I play sp and co op mostly now, so I could care less. PunkBuster is not gonna fix the fact that cheating is what gaming is mostly all about now in the mp arenas. I do remember the old days when cheats were rare. Peeps had a very different mindset. Now gaming is basicly just online wacking off. Hence the cheating being as rampant as it is.

[Zarkan 0]

For me is ok,just dont wont to get somn lagg or somning like that in game,boot is cool to play online end be sure that player dont use somn "dirty triks" .

[Michael_Wittman 0]

What I think is that this game should be on Steam. Thats really a good Anti-piracy. Whats more...if they caught someone cheating they ban the ID so that person cannot play online anymore with that license. Its the better option.

When you say cheating is killing MP gaming its true. For example I quitted playing CS because of that, but now with Steam I barely have seen cheating.

Other 3rd party anti-cheats like Cheating-Death never did the job so well as its done bby now.

Cheers.

[jerryhopper 286]

hey dwarden, i must admit....

your sig is really sexy man!

About punkbuster....i'll leave you dogs fight about that.

i already have the bone! ( michal wittman just noted a essential part of cheat-prevention, which im working on for quite a while... )

Disturbing PUNKBUSTER news.

Quote[/b] ]Beginning with PunkBuster client version 1.500, we have extended the PunkBuster Anti-Cheat system to operate without the requirement to run PunkBuster supported games with Administrator privileges when running under Windows 2000, XP, or Vista. In order to do this, we have developed new Windows service components to work with the PunkBuster system. PunkBuster will automatically begin using the new service components on supported systems. To manually install/uninstall the components, users may use our PBSVC Setup Program. However, uninstalling the new service components will disable PunkBuster and may prevent playing on PunkBuster servers. PBSVC can be downloaded from here. Once the PnkBstrA service is running along with a new PB client version 1.500 and higher, running PB enabled games under Windows 2000, XP or Vista no longer requires Administrator privileges.

so, another service on your PC? yay or nay!

[AsRock+SD 0]

Hell NO!!, More touble than it's worth.

[frederf 0]

I haven't found cheating/hacking to be any problem whatsoever in ArmA so I voted no.

Better administration tools (freezing troublesome player, remote monitoring, easier admin interface, etc) would be more helpful than anticheat, plus I am nervous about the extra net overhead, CPU overhead, and compatibility issues that PB might bring.

[Dwarden 1125]

upcoming PB supported title is Enemy Territory : Quake Wars

another fresh news worth notice

EA/Crytek announced that PunkBuster is official anticheat for Crysis ...

[Speedkore 0]

i cant understand why people votes no, if you want to enable it in you server you can, if not, nothing. Those who vote no seems that they are a big cheaters!. If you are not a cheater then you dont have nothing to be afraid of.

What it can not be, is to play a game with nothing against cheaters, because everybody can cheat this game so easly that its makes me laugh.

PS: For those who havent seen never a cheat in arma i think they are fucking blind!!!! so better shut up and connect to NO pb servers when they come.

PS2: ALL old cheats in flashpoint 1 runs very well in armed assault because i tested some of them and i can asure it

[SHWiiNG 0]

I cant believe what im seeing in the poll in its current state. More of the community voted no to a tried and tested Anti-cheat system. Why?

Surely recent uproars about people who ruin the gameplay for others would instigate the need for further prevention of these so called Noobs.

And need i remind you that cheating is certainly a form of exploitation that ruins the experience for other players more than what is happening at the moment.

I mean whats worse, an individual player who teamkills and is kicked. or a player who can spawn hundreds of Vehicles, slowing the game down, dumbing down the experience or in the worse case scenario crashing the server therefore ruining the whole experience for everyone who was using that server

I think i have made my point..

[ck-claw 1]

In the steam thread,the yes's are very rapidly catching up the no's!

Surley something PB/Steam is better than nothing?

[smellyjelly 0]

The poll was started almost two years ago. Ask again and I'm sure the results will be very different.

[Speedkore 0]

WTF this post is more old than my grandmother, make a new one with a new poll moderators!xD

[USMC NEEDER 0]

Punkbuster will STOP cheating and other bad uses in Multiplayer, thats why EA uses it.

[dm 9]

Punkbuster will STOP cheating and other bad uses in Multiplayer, thats why EA uses it.

In lala land maybe, but in the real world there are just as many cheats on PB games as anywhere else...

[Marinecqc 0]

Your don't know what your talking about... read a little about punkbuster and see what all of the people who play games with punkbuster and see what they say about it.

[Rogueci5 0]

Hi all

I have not been in these forums long; however I have been playing computer games since the dawn.

I have played FPS since the release or DF1 and have played them all, cept quake in Multiplay (I think some of you will understand why)

I have not read all the replies but I will say this.

With a simple Google search you will find at least 3 sites that Give a warranty that their product if you purchase it after trying the demo version WILL not be caught by Punkbuster.

The sad fact is that PB is usless the only people it will catch are the people on slow connections when it fails to update and ofcourse the foolish who dont pay for thier cheat softwear.

PB is not effective in ANY FPS to date, the hackers are building better and faster than PB can, that’s a sad fact.

[Rogueci5 0]

Your don't know what your talking about... read a little about punkbuster and see what all of the people who play games with punkbuster and see what they say about it.

You better do that google search mate, because DeadMeatXM2 is correct.

Remember these are not our opinions, this is fact PB has failed.

[SWAT_BigBear 0]

PB stops cheats, but not ALL of them. Overtime new cheats do get added.

They are able to issue hardware bans for tampering with the PB software.

AMBL (Automatic Master Ban List) is a great tool to keep servers upto date.

[alext223 0]

I voted yes. If cheating is killing the MP game, then added protection should be needed. Unfortunately, I am only a basic user of ArmA (Hell, I work with food, not computers! and am not fully aware of some of the complications that may arise from implementing such software, but with the skill of senior members of the OFP/ArmA community, these problems can be overcome. But going on a tangent, I only once played OFP in MP mode, but got the new pc and fast enough modem to play ArmA MP, lucky for me, I found a clan to play with rather soon and enjoy playing with them when I can get out of work early enough, but ATM, can't get out of work early enough and have to play the public servers. I haven't been a victim of a hacker yet, but piece of mind would be a nice thing to have. Got enough problems when the noobs blow up the base anyway!

[Dwarden 1125]

PB or VAC aren't fails ...

considering they need to wait what 'cheaters' code first before catching up ...

they keep cheating at way LOWER rate that w/o them ...

that's fact You can't deny

ofc there is another question and that's how often and how well these 'protections' are updated and how often are issued delayed bans ...

in ideal times 'ban spree' from PB took something between 2 to 7 days in worst case up to 3 weeks ...

yet with PB You get option to ban by PB GUID which is quite effective 'bonus' to admin hands

this combined with multiple anticheat groups collecting cheaters info

(PB screenshots, logs of violations and global bans and hardware UID bans)

is enough to keep servers in 'playable' status

PB coding team is quite small and also they not some 'godlike' coders

so when they work on implementing new titles (ET:QW, Crysis) and rewriting PB arch (e.g. services approach)

You can notice drop in 'catchup' speeds

similar problems are with VAC/VAC2 but it's bit worse (no bonus features for admins)

still even with these minuses PB (or VAC) noone can argue out the fact that game w/o any anticheat is cheaters heaven

(this include ideal situation of perfect server code with all important data checked and calc by server)

[berowe 0]

zomg *insert 'respected' community member's name here* voted against it I do too!

I think the 'pb hates mods/addons' point is a non-issue right now at least-- It's not the public games that run mods, only the private pre-planned "good-ole boys club" games do that. 90% of all public servers are just stock Arma.

And it's optional!! What's the worst case? PB gives your pc herpes? Make some buds, join a realism unit or league and play there. Or just stay off the interwebs and get some salve.

[ZIKAN 0]

I voted yes. I did consider the no option also.

Anything is better than nothing, on a public server. Even if it stops only a small amount of cheating, I still think it would be worth it.

The last few nights, I have encounted cheaters, or people only there to spoil the game. Some will suggest I join a private server to escape it. I do sometimes. But sometimes I wanna just dip in and out of a public pvp game and have fun with a bunch of random people. I play all the game types, not just one. Most private servers, stick to one game type anyhow.

If it will mess up how we use mods I dont really care much for that. The community will adapt somehow, it always does.

I think we should be thinking about the core game, that appeals to the majority, rather than the smaller different groups within the community who visit these forums.

I agree with 'berowe' must of the servers are vanilla Arma anyway, except for people using sound mods of course.

Some are like sheep, if they see someone exploiting the game they play, then some maybe inclined to think they wanna do that too. It spreads, it get worse.

Punkbuster might not be the answer,

But doing nothing about it, is not an option, I think.