Do You want PunkBuster in Armed Assault?

[Phazon 0]

I voted no because it will most likely kill client-side modding (which is the biggest draw-card for ArmA for me - the fact I can make the game look and sound like as I want it).

[smellyjelly 0]

I voted no because it will most likely kill client-side modding (which is the biggest draw-card for ArmA for me - the fact I can make the game look and sound like as I want it).

I'm sure that if it's added, then servers will get a choice whether to use it or not. Obviously most public servers will, but private servers probably wouldn't.

[SWAT_BigBear 0]

It's really easy to setup servers to allow which mods they want to have on individual servers. So.. no worries for the modding community. I would have said no if I didn't know of this.

[churnedfortaste 0]

I don't think you should have made this poll, We get 48% common sense and 52% people who primarily associate PB with BF2 :/

[Dwarden 1125]

well at least after 2 years PB matured, forum members matured and cheaters infested nearly all MP games ...

so i hope for future titles BIS reconsider approach

[DBO_ 0]

and the cost for Bis to implement punkbuster a program that fails to eliminate all cheating in most mainstream games is ...

wait for it

$too little gain for too much dollarage

spend the money on game2 bis and give us a bigger lock server button too remind us what the best way to eliminate cheaters is .

[PsYcH0_Ch!cKeN 0]

This thread's two years old and still going strong. Nice.

I've been reading these boards regularly for 3 years and I've only just now bothered to actually sign up and have a say, so I might as well throw in my 2c now I'm able to!

I voted no. I should be more specific though:

I vote Yes to anticheat.

However I vote a resounding No to PunkBuster.

PunkBuster stops some cheats yes, but far more get around it. In fact it encourages them to try harder. While the initial rate of cheating takes a nose dive, after the first few months it comes rocketing back up and PB ceases to be any use at all. The one and only feature that actually works to catch cheaters is the screenshot function, which hardly requires the complexity and nuisance factor of PB and still requires admin review anyway.

Once upon a time I was a pro-PB advocate. Back when CoD was just starting out and cheating was ramping up, we were all on the "get PB now" bandwagon. But as the years went by, I started to realise what a crock it was. The number of cheats didn't drop at all (beyond the initial AC shock), they just learned how to avoid being caught by the software and went right on cheating. So what use is an anti-cheat program that doesn't stop cheating? If it had no negative effects, then I wouldn't care so much, but it has them by the truckload.

I've now played years of CoD, BF2 and AA, all under the not-so-watchful eye of PB. All I can say is it's an utter prick of a program. Apart from the fact that once it's installed, one of its various processes insists on running at almost all times (whether you're playing its designated game or not), it's completely useless when update time rolls around. If they make a single error in it, everyone's stuffed. Much like what happened in CoD 2 about 2 months back. They broke their own update function and people were then being kicked because the update was failing. What a clever catch 22! Not only that, but even assuming the update is working, if you try a fresh install of a PB game that's had a few months of updating, the auto update will fail completely. You need to physically go to the evenbalance website and manually update your PB to the latest version before it'll work properly. This happens in ALL PB enabled games, even the recent ones, and it's absolutely unacceptable that they still haven't fixed it.

My other main grievance is that in an ArmA specific setting, PB will prevent client-side modding like texture and sound replacement packs. On the one hand, people who're using glowing neon models will be out of business. On the other, people like me who find the default textures inappropriate and the default sounds hopeless, will be stuck. Yes, if the serverside config is using them, then they'll work, but public servers will be using default. It's easy to say "but on private servers you can configure it anyway you want" but on a private server, you won't need PB at all so the point is moot.

Also, on a point back in the origins of this thread (it may already have been refuted somewhere in here, but I don't have a lifetime to read the whole thing) the point was made that in game solutions wouldn't catch DX or GL hacks. I'll counter that with "neither does PB". You can't stop a driver hack, it's just not possible. Drivers aren't standard and it doesn't matter what program you're using, you can't catch someone who's hacking them. The only way to know is from screenshots and if, as I stated initially, the only thing PB is useful for is as a glorified screen capture program (and even that can be hacked around to a degree), then it would be far better to do so in-house, both from a convenience point of view and a cost point of view.

So I repeat, definitely get us an anticheat, but NOT PunkBuster. We can do so much better than that.

[OpforMaster 0]

I vote yes and here is my reason.

I play in a tourney that uses mods and I have a bunch of mods installed. But I have different start buttons for the mods I use most plus a link to Stock ArmA as well. So if I wanted to play private servers it is usually prearranged and I know which mods I need. If I wanna pub i will just use my stock ArmA setup. In the end PB support is a bonus for the ArmA community because it will keep public servers accessible to noobs. Nothing is more discouraging to a noob than rampant TKing and cheating. ArmA needs more people to be successful.

[PsYcH0_Ch!cKeN 0]

Well for that reason, I'd be in favour of a Steam release. These days you don't have to have Steam running unless you've actually bought a game over Steam (with the exception of Valve games and RO). Look at the CoD series as an example. Boxed and Steam versions happily play together and you never know who's who. Get a few more of the more frustrating bugs nailed down and this'd be a prime candidate for a Steam release and the potential playerbase it'd bring. This really belongs in the other thread though.

[chipper 0]

PB should be on all the PvP servers.

Co-op maps they should be turned off except evo

[VaiHalen 0]

I voted no.

First I play Fear Combat witch uses PB. He runs in the background all the time I can see punkbustrA and punkbustrB (cant remember the exact name right now) in the task manager. When I stop playing Fear Combat he uses 25mb each.

PB can prevent some cheats but not all. I see a lot of cheaters flying, aimbot etc etc in PB enabled servers. PB caught them after a time but the next day the cheaters are again playing with patched versions or new cheats.

[Dwarden 1125]

jeez , You can stop PB services A,B fine just after You finished game

to expand what i mean all You need is create batch file (.bat or .cmd) with

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">

net start PnkBstrA

net start PnkBstrB

to start PB services

and to stop services

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">

net stop PnkBstrA

net stop PnkBstrB

ofc You can also set this to depend on running game or combine with other tools to start before / after game etc

You can set them to manual startup so they do not need start when OS starts ...

and yes they works fine after that too even if You forget to start them (game starts services self)

client side modding is possible if server admin includes these textures/files into list (PB supports multiple hashes per file)

contrary to this, You can't do this with VAC2 on STEAM as that kills client side modding for sure or it will skip clientside modding fully and concentrate only on obvious cheats

(typical problem in HL2DM/CSS/DODS with transparent textures and neon camo)

not to mention VAC needs game fully linked to STEAM (otherwise cheaters just use non STEAM version of game)

anyway what other anticheat You got mind if You rule out PB and VAC/VAC2 ?

HackShield? GameGuard ? gimme break i'm gunna erase any game first second i see it contains these so so programs (unstable, rootkit like approach, lame coding, no real AC values)

anyway i still wait for someone who names anything able to stand against PB (except VAC2) ....

[oChaos.DNJ 0]

While your batch file solution may work for not having them run when not playing.

I dont think these services should even be required to run, which they recently made them.

They are to give administrative rights to PB for those who dont have an Admin account. Also for vista users.

Well I am neither, I am admin of my PC on XP. I dont need the services, so why should I have to run them?

I think PB is the best AC, but I do not like these services.

[ArmaVidz 0]

I voted no to PB due to all the slowdowns I've had from it in the past. The problems. The hassle with this not updating, that not working, kicked from servers because PB was down or the like scenarios...

But as we can see, hacks are becoming a part of this game like all the others. Anything that will hinder Wesker's attempts makes me a happy guy.

Now only if we could figure out a way to reach out over the internet and stab someone in the face.

[Dwarden 1125]

While your batch file solution may work for not having them run when not playing.

I dont think these services should even be required to run, which they recently made them.

They are to give administrative rights to PB for those who dont have an Admin account. Also for vista users.

Well I am neither, I am admin of my PC on XP. I dont need the services, so why should I have to run them?

I think PB is the best AC, but I do not like these services.

these services are in fact PB client just 'outside' the game executable (you can clearly see B is same build like PB client)

also on service level You can easier manage and operate instead of being limited like in past ...

be happy PB done it in visible way

there are even more hidden ways as low level drivers or rootkit way

i see no point to 'consider' them problem it's no different that what was running already ...

and it was needed change to address other issues like rights/VISTA ...

i was waiting for this code change nearly 2y ...

[memnoch 0]

Rather than PB, I would prefer or more active an co-operative Admin community with shared ban lists. Adopting a banned from one, banned from all approach would be a nice thing to have. Perhaps needing three admins or so to confirm a universal ban.

[noccie 0]

Rather than PB, I would prefer or more active an co-operative Admin community with shared ban lists. Adopting a banned from one, banned from all approach would be a nice thing to have. Perhaps needing three admins or so to confirm a universal ban.

banning is COMPLETELY useless in arma.

If u know "they" can :

-generate Id's on the fly

-know how to translate a CD-key into an ID , and visa versa

-can use your ID to get u banned on unknowing servers

-know an exploit in Gamespy so they can connect without any valid Id anyway

This info is kept among their in crowd and spread as they see fit, depending on how much havoc they want to see. (Except the gamespy one i can imagine..since if it's used too much gamespy might actually sue or at least plug the bug)

So sadly banning is as useful as digging a hole to bury yourselves in.

[.kju 3244]

noccie please vote over at the Community BugTracker and tell BI

about this issue. the chance is a lot higher to put pressure on BI

via the BTS:

2761: ArmA cheat protection needs rework / updates (metabug)

please sign up, vote and tell your buddes to do so as well!

[Pringles 0]

No.

PB is a very invasive method to something that can be solved easier by better game security (fix the id generation for one) and perhaps a easier way to verify someone is cheating and a community run banlist.

[Dwarden 1125]

No.

PB is a very invasive method to something that can be solved easier by better game security (fix the id generation for one) and perhaps a easier way to verify someone is cheating and a community run banlist.

easier wayt to verify someone is cheating ... that's million dollars wish

would You like to see game improvements or BIS spend 12 months just on anticheat solutions ?

You can't try reinvent wheel w/o either huge staff, time and $

[SWAT_BigBear 0]

No.

PB is a very invasive method to something that can be solved easier by better game security (fix the id generation for one) and perhaps a easier way to verify someone is cheating and a community run banlist.

easier wayt to verify someone is cheating ... that's million dollars wish

would You like to see game improvements or BIS spend 12 months just on anticheat solutions ?

You can't try reinvent wheel w/o either huge staff, time and $

This is where PB can generate money, to do so.

Them little tools like team tag registrations (someone mentioned name banning/kicking elsewhere), and generally community support.

Even though most will say it's "intrusive", we do know it's affective over the long term.

[Rogueci5 0]

Even though most will say it's "intrusive", we do know it's affective over the long term.

Have you played BF or BF2? Maybe AA? or anygame usnig PB thats considered a gmae worth hacking in to win?

Its not working long term LOL

That a fact.

[Pringles 0]

No.

PB is a very invasive method to something that can be solved easier by better game security (fix the id generation for one) and perhaps a easier way to verify someone is cheating and a community run banlist.

easier wayt to verify someone is cheating ... that's million dollars wish

would You like to see game improvements or BIS spend 12 months just on anticheat solutions ?

You can't try reinvent wheel w/o either huge staff, time and $

How about a spectator mode, easy way to record time demos etc etc

Similar to methods in other games, that's all that you really need.

I'd rather see them keep improving the game and leave PB and SecuROM (I'll leave that for another day) out of the game.

People will still cheat, people still cheat in Q3, RTCW:ET, and BF2 which has PB, people still cheat in CS/CS:S which have VAC.

Meanwhile all you're doing is adding another layer of software akin to SecuROM/StarForce which in the end don't really do much to stop anything.

[Dwarden 1125]

sure i got nothing against demos and AAR to identify cheaters ...

but i doubt everyone want spend huge part of his life just to trying figure out if that guy cheat or not ...

consider PB more like addition to these demos and AAR ...

dont like it ... jeez disable it ... it's one damn config line ...

end of drama

[PASTOR 0]

I voted YES. I hope that all games will include anti-cheat software. It won't stop all the cheaters, but they do stop the small time cheaters with the threat of permanent bans by PB to try out a new hack.