Do You want PunkBuster in Armed Assault?

[nuxil 2]

well if you talking about someone making an app that ruinning along with arma.. giving postion of all units etc etc..

he|she has eigher found a bug in arma that they can intercept with, they use this exploit to cheat with and feed back the info to you.

or they are have a app sniffing the connection between you and the server and feed the info you want..

in first case.. you can fix this by upgrading. as i mention in my previouse post..

if 2nd case.

why not just establish a crypted connection between the client and the server.. with lets say 256 bits random key on eatch connection. so if you want to crack this key.. his beloved cheating app better have accsess to a supercomputer. B.cos the time his home pc has cracked the key,, the mission will be over.. and on well overtime.

[Dwarden 1125]

not just application which reads certain memory addresses to get e.g. units position ... also valuse to edit (ammo count, hitboxes position) not to mention visual "changes" by messin with D3D (removing fog, textures etc) ...

even if you get fantastic coding team to write your game up in hard to break style then D3D turns into weak spot

[mahuja 12]

In other words, the fight against cheating is a classic weakest link problem.

And it's a long chain, longer than most realize.

[Dwarden 1125]

In other words, the fight against cheating is a classic weakest link problem.

And it's a long chain, longer than most realize.

huh ? you mean these who trying to prevent cheating are weakest spot ?

as fair players ? game server owners? admins ? AC coders ? game developers ?

somehow i don't get it

[ArmaVidz 0]

Punkbuster doesn't work. Look at BF2. They've tried up and down to stop cheaters. They're still in there. Look at Americas Army. The US Army dev'd that sucker and there's STILL a crapload of cheating.

Punkbuster isn't as good as the cheaters. Probably never will be. In order to be as good, you need to be inside the gaming community with nearly satanistic tactics like paying for a subscribing to cheat dev sites and skimming forums.

I have a better idea, pay a bunch of folks to actually admin servers...or create an easily accessible manner of reporting individuals to admins. The only way to stop cheating and TKing is for the community to police itself.

[Paco454 0]

I vote "NO"

PACO

[HellToupee 0]

i used to play RTCW then enemy territory, PB caused no issues with mods maps, hell i used it on linux no probs. No one really accused each other of cheating because of it, its features allowed admins to locate cheaters like screenshot feature etc.

Its always been optional in the games with it, but gameswith it nearly always have it on because it was simply better on than off.

[Dwarden 1125]

Punkbuster doesn't work. Look at BF2. They've tried up and down to stop cheaters. They're still in there. Look at Americas Army. The US Army dev'd that sucker and there's STILL a crapload of cheating.

Punkbuster isn't as good as the cheaters. Probably never will be. In order to be as good, you need to be inside the gaming community with nearly satanistic tactics like paying for a subscribing to cheat dev sites and skimming forums.

I have a better idea, pay a bunch of folks to actually admin servers...or create an easily accessible manner of reporting individuals to admins. The only way to stop cheating and TKing is for the community to police itself.

ofc it DOES work ... just to some limit ...

that's like say antivirus, firewalls w/e security software not work just because You have dumb user or kernel hole someone exploited ...

they work but they can fail ...

because it's always easier to break something than fix it ...

try it with glass bottle ... break it with hammer ...

now try made new glass bottle or fix up that one You crushed before ...

what's easier ?

or even better ... Police/Law&Order and Crime!

You got both yet Crime still exist ... yet You want tell me state w/o any police and law&order is better than state with them ?

[JIN 0]

pb works fine for those that wants to create mods its all server based configs to allow those mods

and client version only need to update there once in a while for the fight against cheat

and a ROE system would be real nice

its not some army term its really something becoming aplied in games

[mattxr 9]

i didnt think this thread was for real.. didnt think BIS would ever implement it.

[BLSmith2112 0]

Instead of punkbuster, people should report cheaters and their software to bis... so they can make those people into flys.

[Dwarden 1125]

Instead of punkbuster, people should report cheaters and their software to bis... so they can make those people into flys.

so you want to wait 2-3 months before patch released to solve "reported" cheats?

somehow i fail to see how it's gunna solve the problem instead PB ...

[-G-Shock- 0]

If ArmA evolves into regular MP games be it CTF or Platoon vs Platoon...and if tournaments start for this game you can rest ASSURED there will be cheaters around and you can bet your socks on that.

In order to help development on the game, sales must also supply funds and to this end, the sole COOP functions do not do.

Cheat websites and developers are like mushrooms and in other games i've seen cheat packages being sold at 200$. Cheating is an issue but also a business. If cheating is easy on the game, then cheats will be made for free and this means MANY cheaters.

Are you ready to see this game's sales (with what it COSTS to our community in terms of longevity and playability) and player numbers drop? Think ahead please...ArmA is gonna be released in the U.S.A. soon too and it's a BIZ for cheat-coders.

Now PB ain't perfect...no program is and can never be...but what's best for our community?

If BI task some staffmembers to hunt for the cheats, this anticheating software will be viable just 10 days after the release of the new patch...then the cheats will break this protection and go unchecked again till next patch from BI.

Pb on the other hand, develops continuously, weekly sometimes (as soon as a new cheat is discovered by their spies in cheat sites! and is *independent*...so not only BI staff is free to develop the game uncaring for cheats (which is what we want because they will assess funds and staff on more important task: the development! but also we get (for free) the *best* anticheating software possible.

It will *never* be perfect but it will SURELY work better than any anticheating software BI can ever make...not to mention time between official patches can be HUGE. Are u up to wait for next patch before playing a cheat-free game?

What about the fact that without pb u can't take a screenshot on a player and thus u can never be sure he doesn't cheat? Would u revert to banning players based on "feeling" of cheating?

I don't understand you guys voting no...are you reading the arguments or not?

[walker 0]

Hi all

ArmA gets patched regular, every time it does the cheaters crackers have to redo their work.

You only have to look at the number of cheater whiners who posted to the troubleshooting, moaning about the last update, to realise that.

All BIS have to do is add in some code each time and the cheaters will be stuffed.

The solution is regular patches.

The other thing is that cheaters get nothing out of coops and with the prevalence of coops in ArmA they soon get bored with spending a half their life trying to get their cheats working again in ArmA.

There are also several server config commands in ArmA that need to be used by server admins. We had a small rash of cheaters in OFP eventually they either grew up or got bored.

The Psychology of cheating

Cheaters are sad people when it comes down to it, some are the type who were molested by their mum and dad. They probably pull the wings off butterflies and torture kittens and puppies when they are not cheating. I think the police could do worse than checking out cheaters as possible mass murder types. When you think about it is the same psychology.

There are a whole raft of psychological problems cheaters/griefers/crackers can suffer from.

Here is excerpt from an interesting article dealing with the the psychological disorder cheaters/griefers/crackers can have; please note there is nothing to stop them having several of these. This is from the second page

Quote[/b] ]Antisocial personality disorder, aka the psychopath or sociopath:

"These are people whose pulse would remain constant if there was a bomb threat," Dr. Liao says. "They lack empathy. It's hard for them to picture how their actions would have consequences. They can be an outwardly charming. They don't obey rules. They are likely to go online to vent frustrations with little regard for how it affects other people. This disorder is not all that common, but a narcissist, a less extreme version, is more common."

Impulse control problems:

This dysfunction makes it difficult to resist urges. Dr. Liao says. "They feel a lot of tension leading to a particular action. When they finally fulfill the impulse, they experience a release of tension and a sense of pleasure." An example of an impulse control disorder is intermittent explosive disorder. "People with this disorder may experience rage attacks and could become destructive. In an online game it is hard to read the intention behind various actions which means these people can misinterpret things as attacks upon them and respond angrily."

Depression:

"Depression is surprisingly common amongst Americans," Dr. Liao explains. If people are depressed, "they are generally more irritable and isolated, and their frustration threshold is a lot lower." What's more, depressed individuals are more likely to interpret a neutral act as a direct insult to them. They can be quick to misinterpret events and quick to retaliate. Dr. Liao also proposes that by griefing in an online settings, depressed individuals may be trying to goad others into killing them - a sort of "virtual suicide."

Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD):

This can be caused by any kind of trauma, but is frequently found in combat veterans. Generally they are hyper vigilant, meaning they are at an elevated level of awareness when it comes to potential threats. Combined with anger issues or impulse control problems, it could lead to griefing behavior.

Psychotic disorders:

This less-common dysfunction includeds people with paranoia, hallucinations, and delusions. "Psychotic people may experience what is known as 'idea of reference'," Dr. Liao explains. "For example, they are watching the television and think that the people are talking about them." A player with a persecutory delusion could perceive other players as enemies out to get him.

Substance abuse:

Those abusing drugs might be more impulsive or disinhibited. Dr. Liao emphasized that it is important not to view griefers as pathological people or simply jerks. She explains that "the people who do it just for kicks, the anti-social people, probably make up a small portion of griefers." Not only are there many reasons someone might choose to grief, but within the framework of group dynamics, someone must always take on the griefing role.

Follow link for the full article

http://www.gamepro.com/computer/pc/games/features/107088.shtml

The fact that some could be veterans of Iraq suffering mental anguish causes me to be a little more understanding. Radical thought but perhaps we need to provide a cheater server where they can act out.

I think the better thing to do with cheaters/griefers/crackers is to track them down via websites, email addresses and IP to report them to mental health services. We have only to look at what happened recently in the US university to see why.

Prevention is better than cure.

Kind Regards walker

[Easy_tiger 0]

It is tempting.....

I have experienced cheating in OFP first hand (example texture modification , pulling the net cable then reconnecting)

These were all dicovered and passed to BIS who did a great job preventing them.

Provided that BIS work closely with the Punkbuster devs to ensure complete compatibility/stability I can see no problem why punk buster should not be implemented.

In my opinion cheating murdered MP in the last days of OFP, cheating and accusations of cheating is what ended the OFP experience for me......

Sad but true

[sicilian 0]

There is definetly a high need on doing some local checks on the client like PB does.

The signature system is a very high secure protection against any unauthorized addon or config changes.

But... protection of the local memory image isn't that good as the memory hacks show.

For us there is no way to check those things with the implemented methods. That's why we need any third party or BI solution to check local changes!

My vote goes to PB.

[walker 0]

Hi All

PB does not work witness the games that it is in are such TK/Cheat/cracker feasts.

It costs lots and realy hits your FPS.

ArmA has the function built in any way so why use a crappy second level implimentation like PB?

The problem is that server admins are not implimenting it.

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">#debug (command) (interval) Commands can be checkfile, console, totalsent, usersent, userinfo, userqueue

example:

checkfiles[]={"HWTL\dta\data3d.pbo","dta\data3d.pbo"};

Allows you to check a list of files for integrity.

kickduplicate=1; Do not allow duplicate game ids

equalModRequired=1; Require equal mod as the server

verifySignatures=1; Enables or disables the signature verification for addons. Default = 0

The last already does what PB does.

Why use the lag fest that is PB?

Kind Regards walker

[Dwarden 1125]

Hi All

PB does not work witness the games that it is in are such TK/Cheat/cracker feasts.

It costs lots and realy hits your FPS.

ArmA has the function built in any way so why use a crappy second level implimentation like PB?

The problem is that server admins are not implimenting it.

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">#debug (command) (interval) Commands can be checkfile, console, totalsent, usersent, userinfo, userqueue

example:

checkfiles[]={"HWTL\dta\data3d.pbo","dta\data3d.pbo"};

Allows you to check a list of files for integrity.

kickduplicate=1;  Do not allow duplicate game ids  

equalModRequired=1; Require equal mod as the server

verifySignatures=1; Enables or disables the signature verification for addons. Default = 0

The last already does what PB does.

Why use the lag fest that is PB?

Kind Regards walker

such feature is implemented in many other games , known as "pure mode" etc.

yet tell me why such games (SoF2, AA, BF serie, Q3, ET etc .)implemented PB?

unreal engine got also own native code for files checking ...

(beyond just pure mode, supporting partial hashes etc)

yet You should ask why Americas Army developers still went for PB

cheaters most likely already know how get around file validation in ArmA ...

calling PB crappy implementation is laughly ...

show me better and less crappy implementation

[Zolner 0]

To put it quite simply, punkbuster has screwed me and my friends far too many times, and if it were integrated into ArmA I might need to go blow my head off. Like starforce, its a pain in the behind and the only game i've played regardless of PB was cod2's multiplayer, but that still had hackers running around willynilly. It doesn't help for shit and a quick google search pulls up i'm going to assume mongo working hacks for games with PB protection.

[mahuja 12]

In other words, the fight against cheating is a classic weakest link problem.

And it's a long chain, longer than most realize.

huh ? you mean these who trying to prevent cheating are weakest spot ?

as fair players ? game server owners? admins ? AC coders ? game developers ?

somehow i don't get it

If you can be openminded enough that someone that has spoken against you can say something that agrees with you, it might be easier  

To rephrase, cheating in a game is like breaking a chain; It's the classic saying that a chain isn't stronger than its weakest link.

(And the long chain, is about how many places there could be holes and entrances for the cheater to get his cheats going, nothing else.)

Cheating and computer security (which I'd call my business) are very equal in this aspect; If there is a human attacker, he only needs to find that one little hole before he's in, whereas the ones trying to keep the systems secure (and him out) has to cover the whole wall/chain. The hole in question can be in the software (in this case game devs), software configuration (server host), third party libraries/dependencies (D3D) and still plenty more.

The only difference is that some "holes" will only allow for a certain amount of access; a pure d3d hack will only allow manipulations like transparency, and won't show things that aren't on the screen - at best it gives you some information, as opposed to invulnerability and superweapons.

I'll grant that PB may cover some links of this chain that BIS may have overlooked; but I think it's a very relevant question to ask if the troubles PB gives is really worth it. Isn't that really what the poll is all about?

Obviously, my answer to that question, is no. The reason is called false positives.

And given that PB is optional in name only, of course I don't want PB in ArmA.

You've obviously been spared of it yourself, so you should consider yourself lucky about that. And I believe you've realized before now that not everyone (...honest, those who matters) has as 'flowery' experiences.

Regardless of PB, I believe we'll see the .bissign stuff get ready. Some of the biggest cheats I've heard of for OFP was addon-related. That is what the (WIP) bis sign stuff was made to combat. I believe that it will be quite successful as such. Even more so if an addon maker using that also includes cross-network version checks on everything such that old versions of an addon (e.g. exploitable) cannot be used on a server with an update. (If someone makes a template for scripts achieving that, all the better.)

That will probably be the end of the shilka rifle I've heard a rumor about, and everything like it.

[walker 0]

Hi all

In reply to Dwarden.

Quote[/b] ]yet tell me why such games (SoF2, AA, BF serie, Q3, ET etc .)implemented PB?

It is called the, "We must do something!" mentality.

It is like the actions governments do with regard to drug laws. We all know they do not work. Drug addiction is an illness. You cant stop or cure psychosis by making it illegal.

But lots of people scream and shout we must do something! So to shut them up bad governments make laws and waste money and effort.

In the game dev world they use PB it saves the devs the hassle and externalises the problem

As has been pointed out we are dealing with weakest link and my long experience with computers tells me adding a link does not improve the chain. PB is a second level solution like a virus checker for windows because unlike other operating systems windows was not initially built secure. For the record it is improving but windows still suffers from a long chain.

PB does solve some problems but like a virus checker and software firewall in windows it slows things down and can be beaten. It is far better to build things in at the first level. At CoC the one thing we made sure people saw was the source code of was our network services. This allows our peers to correct it. BIS could do worse than follow that example and open up the source for the network code.

Team Killers, cheaters, griefers and crackers are all seperate problems

We also need to stop conflating TKs, cheaters, griefers and crackers while all are anti social behavior probably caused by deep seated psychological problems, as I already posted:

Quote[/b] ]Here is excerpt from an interesting article dealing with the the psychological disorder cheaters/griefers/crackers can have; please note there is nothing to stop them having several of these. This is from the second page

Quote[/b] ]Antisocial personality disorder, aka the psychopath or sociopath:

"These are people whose pulse would remain constant if there was a bomb threat," Dr. Liao says. "They lack empathy. It's hard for them to picture how their actions would have consequences. They can be an outwardly charming. They don't obey rules. They are likely to go online to vent frustrations with little regard for how it affects other people. This disorder is not all that common, but a narcissist, a less extreme version, is more common."

Impulse control problems:

This dysfunction makes it difficult to resist urges. Dr. Liao says. "They feel a lot of tension leading to a particular action. When they finally fulfill the impulse, they experience a release of tension and a sense of pleasure." An example of an impulse control disorder is intermittent explosive disorder. "People with this disorder may experience rage attacks and could become destructive. In an online game it is hard to read the intention behind various actions which means these people can misinterpret things as attacks upon them and respond angrily."

Depression:

"Depression is surprisingly common amongst Americans," Dr. Liao explains. If people are depressed, "they are generally more irritable and isolated, and their frustration threshold is a lot lower." What's more, depressed individuals are more likely to interpret a neutral act as a direct insult to them. They can be quick to misinterpret events and quick to retaliate. Dr. Liao also proposes that by griefing in an online settings, depressed individuals may be trying to goad others into killing them - a sort of "virtual suicide."

Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD):

This can be caused by any kind of trauma, but is frequently found in combat veterans. Generally they are hyper vigilant, meaning they are at an elevated level of awareness when it comes to potential threats. Combined with anger issues or impulse control problems, it could lead to griefing behavior.

Psychotic disorders:

This less-common dysfunction includeds people with paranoia, hallucinations, and delusions. "Psychotic people may experience what is known as 'idea of reference'," Dr. Liao explains. "For example, they are watching the television and think that the people are talking about them." A player with a persecutory delusion could perceive other players as enemies out to get him.

Substance abuse:

Those abusing drugs might be more impulsive or disinhibited. Dr. Liao emphasized that it is important not to view griefers as pathological people or simply jerks. She explains that "the people who do it just for kicks, the anti-social people, probably make up a small portion of griefers." Not only are there many reasons someone might choose to grief, but within the framework of group dynamics, someone must always take on the griefing role.

Follow link for the full article

http://www.gamepro.com/computer/pc/games/features/107088.shtml

and cheats may also TK, but the TK does not require altered files to perform their activity.

As problems for which we need solutions in computer programming terms it is important to decompose a problem to its constituent parts. That is how one analyses a problem.

Once that is done one needs to prioritise the problems.

One does that by asking questions: How common is the problem? How serious is that problem? What ways already exist to solve the problem? How effective are they? What other problems are there? What is the relative value of this problem? etc.

I see cheats perhaps 1 game in a 100 in ArmA while obvious they are not that common. Since I play servers with anything from 10 to 60 plus players; 100 multiplied by the approximate mean of 28 makes that less than 0.28%.

I do not frequent servers that are plagued by cheaters because their admins do not implement the basics I noted in my previous post.

In OFP with its high degree of coop play cheaters soon got bored and went back to BF and CS bothering. When there is no score and the true value of winning is communal cooperation cheating and points mean nothing.

As to improving the checks in ArmA that is the way to go. When it comes down to it we are talking standard integrity checks that programs such as virus checkers perform. Although I think a heuristic Neural Net solution based on the behaviour pattern of cheats, spotting sudden changes in position, massive fire power increases etc would be a useful addition to the server code; along with an admin panel with logs, Keg's observer script and a set of punishment scripts.

Our own community can produce this or BIS can contract some people like Kegs, dinger, spinor and BN880 to do it between them.

As I said PB is a waste of money, resources and FPS.

Kind Regards walker

[HellToupee 0]

Hi All

PB does not work witness the games that it is in are such TK/Cheat/cracker feasts.

It costs lots and realy hits your FPS.

Have you played any of those games?

I dont recall any fps loss, even benchmarked it in rtcw no difference.

I can tell u it did work in RtCW, even ET which was free. BAsically when a cheat came out that got around PB, a auto update followed a few days later and they got caught. In competition games, pb screenshot was used, and once someone was caught only way to get around the ban was a new cdkey.

Quote[/b] ]TK/Cheat/cracker feasts.

TK cheat cracker feasts? sounds like u think people who play fps games other than arma are lesser people, Preventing Tkers is not a function of anti cheat software, plus arma has plently of these people itself as well as cheaters. As for cracker, no idea what u mean by that.

Quote[/b] ]

The solution is regular patches.

that is not a practical solution considering the time involved in each game update, also considering patching is manual. PB is regulary updated, far more frequently than any game patches can be released.

Quote[/b] ]

PB does solve some problems but like a virus checker and software firewall in windows it slows things down

and that is the best any solution can hope for, pb is like a virus checker, when a new virus comes out its not picked up but then down comes the update and that virus is stopped.

[dirtylarrygb 0]

"Cheats" are best defined as using a in game exploit to get an advantage. Findiing a fault in the game then using it to get an unfair advantage.

For instance spawning in a building and staying there and finding a vertex you can shoot out of (seen that a few times).

"Hackers", I would argue in ARMA are running mod version of missions of the game to launch nukes, kill people, run but not tire etc etc. generally annoying but not a total game ender.

"Crackers" are different, these are the people who can either crack Arma or create 3rd party software that allows auto aim etc. These are the worst offenders in BF2 and WOW and can really spoil the game as there advantage is normally totally unfair.

You see the three types in almost all games but the "crackers" running modified versions of the game or 3rd party software to give godlike skills are REALLy the most annoying.

PB and careful coding and testing can almost stop the first 2 "cheats and hacks", but the crackers are the hardwork.

Dice, Valve and Blizzard spend alot of money trying to prevent the "crackers", trying to run 3rd party software to give totally unique advantages and as soon as they shut one cheat down within days another will appear.

Blizzard have spent millions trying to stop 3rd party cheats and have only been partially succesful. But these other games have millions of players and even real world montery vavlue to accounts for these games and so are a target for crackers. Arma should see very little "cracker" style cheats. hopefully BIH and admins can stop the other stuff.

[walker 0]

Hi HellToupee

FPS and packet key loss caused by PB

http://www.google.com/search?....PS+loss

I already covered most of the other points you raised about TK not being the same as cheating or cracking or griefing in the post directly above yours.

I know full well that PB does not deal with TKs. I have pointed it out to several people in this forum.

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

[Darkseed79 0]

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.