Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Dwarden

Do You want PunkBuster in Armed Assault?

Recommended Posts

I'd rather not have cheat protection at all simply because it creates extra load on server, client and network. I know server can be disable PB but you know that's not going to happen for most public servers and all it will do is add some mediocre sense of security.

Instead we just need low treshold kick and admin (ban) voting functions. A 50+ player server should not need 25 votes to kick someone. It should take 5... Preferably you have a for and against system though but no biggie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I was ever to host a PvP server, I would greatly appreciate Punkbuster.

However, I'm a co-op nub.

So it would be a waste of money on my behalf. I'd never use it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I vote yes, as it general defeats the the script kiddies and exploiters fairly fast you can always choose to play on a non PB server if you want to.

I remeber the days BEFORE PB, and having to have an admin on a server to sit and boot cheats time after time.

Pb does not protect agaisnt disruptice or abusive players only a server admin can. But it does stop the cheats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

btw.

another new PB feature (in new service mode) is that now it can take advantage of multiprocessor system (using least loaded one) ...

so this hopefully shut down these arguing about CPU resources  whistle.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dwarden if a server can't handle PB, it means it's a 286 and that also means it can't handle ArmA at all. You don't need a DUAL ...any machine capable of hosting a server instance can certainly handle a few more KB or Ram devoted to bust cheaters!

Come on...this is hilarious...pb eating up too much resources?

In a game where the textures aren't loaded correctly yet? smile_o.gifsmile_o.gifsmile_o.gif

I ensure ya'll pb is not gonna be a prob. I respect BI decision even if i disagree...there are MANY things to fix in this *wonderful* game but PB is a good idea nonetheless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all

My thoughts:

I do not see the need for two threads on this.

Time for a merge me thinks.

Kind Regards walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Banning ingame needs work, we need to be able to ban ingame without having to ammend a banlist outside of the game then having to restart the server for it to take effect.

Otherwise im fine with what we've got

Jack my boy, you must be living in the stone age.. This is already possible. You have to #login as server admin to be able to use the ban command.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi all

My thoughts:

I do not see the need for two threads on this.

Time for a merge me thinks.

Kind Regards walker

Me agree.

<span id='ME'><center>Shadow punches the merge button</center></span>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I vote yes,  as it general defeats the the script kiddies and exploiters fairly fast you can always choose to play on a non PB server if you want to.

I remeber the days BEFORE PB,  and having to have an admin on a server to sit and boot cheats time after time.

Pb does not protect agaisnt disruptice or abusive players only a server admin can.  But it does stop the cheats.

You still have to have an admin, only Punkbuster provides him with the tools to be more effective.

People get all snotty about Punkbuster because unadministered server still have cheats on.

Well dur! Of course they do.

Punkbuster is a server administration tool. An admin is still required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this do we/dont we talk is irrelevant, as each server admin can implement pb as they want on their own server, on or off..

This could also be a good solution for a Auto-MBL (Master Ban List) that would keep up to date with streaming servers.(I assume streaming can be turned on or off as in other games but pb still does the checks) Also in some games PB takes Screenies of the players on the server,and stores them to show any graphic hax0rz...

I have been using pb in different games in different leagues for quite a while now and no,its not perfect, but its better than having non at all, which is were we are atm..

And if people want to try and hack PB coz they get pwned everytime they play (Example) then they will only end up,getting there name/I.P. added manually to the Auto-MBL by a server admin,or the sorry assed mofo will get banned when PB gets its regular update..regular being the word...

Also believe it or not the guys who make PB, do so to try and help a community, they work with the community not against it...

I Voted Yes wink_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This discussion took too long and I think it is clear that PB was better to be in arma than NOT!

Look how many complaints about team killing, cheating etc…

Also the lost time and effort by the community to resolve such issues (script here ban list there). wink_o.gifbiggrin_o.gif

PB can help in many of those situations; I hope they rethink about PB in future games.

And thanks for Dwarden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...

so this hopefully shut down these arguing about CPU resources

I've seen PB vaporise performance on BF1942/2142 servers when too many players were on. Bugs? Perhaps. The extra layer will undoubtedly be the cause for much missery yet though.

I'll believe you when I see the benchmarks, but until then... After years of playing BF, including several months with lack of proper NAT support which meant no BF for me, yes, well, I've yet to see PB bring anything good to the games.. at all. So I dare say any amount of bits and layers of code will add cpu cycles and lag. Ofp and indeed arma was/is still far short of excellent multiplayer experience because of its ways, but to my experience, it has never, ever, been due to cheaters.

And of course, Evenbalance probably has a good reason to scare players and companies into wanting this product as well. Right up there with firewall and antivirus software.

Finally, community is too small to warrent expensive cheatprotection. There. done.

my 2 cents worth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

who would foot the bill for PB? if the publishers - which one(s)? who's gonna coordinate payment/implementation/maintenance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@ Mar. 14 2007,20:15)]Dwarden if a server can't handle PB, it means it's a 286 and that also means it can't handle ArmA at all. You don't need a DUAL ...any machine capable of hosting a server instance can certainly handle a few more KB or Ram devoted to bust cheaters!

Come on...this is hilarious...pb eating up too much resources?

In a game where the textures aren't loaded correctly yet? smile_o.gifsmile_o.gifsmile_o.gif

I ensure ya'll pb is not gonna be a prob. I respect BI decision even if i disagree...there are MANY things to fix in this *wonderful* game but PB is a good idea nonetheless.

i guess You missed that important part where was said "CLIENT SIDE SERVICE" smile_o.gif

and as You may know game is usually stressing at least one core to it's max wink_o.gif

plus even it's server, i guess u can't imagine that OFP and ArmA can stress ANY server CPU wise when 1000s AIs are used ...

so i'm glad u supporting me but don't go overboard just because you misread  rofl.gif

Quote[/b] ]

I've seen PB vaporise performance on BF1942/2142 servers when too many players were on. Bugs? Perhaps. The extra layer will undoubtedly be the cause for much missery yet though.

I'll believe you when I see the benchmarks, but until then... After years of playing BF, including several months with lack of proper NAT support which meant no BF for me, yes, well, I've yet to see PB bring anything good to the games.. at all. So I dare say any amount of bits and layers of code will add cpu cycles and lag. Ofp and indeed arma was/is still far short of excellent multiplayer experience because of its ways, but to my experience, it has never, ever, been due to cheaters.

And of course, Evenbalance probably has a good reason to scare players and companies into wanting this product as well. Right up there with firewall and antivirus software.

erm i ran multiple BF1942, BF2 servers and i never noticed any worth to mention CPU usage increase related to PB (except some bugs which were fixed in less than 1 workweek) ...

so i wonder what usable research You base this on (on server there lower impact from PB than on client) or u just made it from thin air smile_o.gif

scare players ? how, who ... again dare to explain ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anything that helps gets rid of the cheating arseholes is worth it in my opinion.

My sentiments exactly, especially after yesterdays experience when I drilled five rounds from my Dragonov into some guy stood on a hill with an anti-tank weapon.

I must remember to get closer next time, so I don't miss.

But if I did that, he'd have felt my breath on the back of his neck... oh jeez.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would anyone vote NO?

A no vote is a vote for no choice. PB is an option a server admin can enable or not as they see fit.

PB bans across all PB active servers regardless of game. Caught and banned in one PB supported game is a ban on all PB supported games on PB activated servers.

PB kicks and bans cheats weather an admin is present or not.

If the presence of PB will encourage you to try to hack it, then fine, cause that hack will have a limited shelf life and eventualy all those using it will be caught and banned ,so please hack away at it all you want as it just results in the removale of more cheats.

There is no need to ask the community about this, BIS should just do it or not.The addition of PB support simply provides an OPTION to use it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also punkbuster supports a protection against teamkills /temporary ban, etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<span style='font-size:25pt;line-height:100%'>NO!</span>

Quote[/b] ]minor minuses:

- increases bit CPU usage of both server and client (1-5%)

minor minuses my ass, I want improvement, want a faster game not a slower one!

There are always ways to find if players are cheating in seriouse servers.

Plz dont make the game even slower!

edit: typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<span style='font-size:25pt;line-height:100%'>NO!</span>
Quote[/b] ]minor minuses:

- increases bit CPU usage of both server and client (1-5%)

minor minuses my ass, I want improvement, want a faster game not a slower one!

There are always ways to find if players are cheating in seriouse servers.

Plz dont make the game even slower!

edit: typo

missed that second line about PB able utilize now that core which is most idle (least busy) ...

and what are these ways to find clever cheater ?

in moment aimbot is configured to rare rnd miss and rnd hitzones (to avoid headshot spree),

in moment he dont use target tracking

in moment you can't see he uses wallhack ...

etc.

NOT even DEMO replayed 10000 times can help you ...

man i heard such argument so often i can't count how often it was proved wrong ...

admin is human not some supernatural being able determine if that shot was cheat aimed or human aimed ...

times when you was able easily spot cheats passed like 8 years ago ... (of course now you can spot stupid user or some low quality coded one) ...

Quote[/b] ]

PB has never slowed cheaters so no

not even dumb person will try to say that you can made easier and get faster cheat for game with PB and w/o any AC ...

i feel your argument got roots from group You belong to (no matter what You say how you changed) ...

of course i will change my opinion in moment groups like Yours produce something usable in game industry to made MP fair play possible ...

considering buzz and hate about PB between cheat authors (no matter how lame coded PB is) shows it's definitely better than NULL solution ...

*note: THIS IS MY PERSONAL OPINION*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my point is:

people are struggling to run arma as smoother as they can, People want to run the game smooth with the recommended specifications, if you say it will take some CPU usage it means that, with it, it will slow the game even more.

I bet all recomended spec's players (like me) dont wan't to run the game even worst. confused_o.gif

If that thing will make the game slower, i still vote NO!

otherwise you will change my mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there should be a government law against cheating, you have to register your games ID in your name and address

if your caught cheating u get a fine.

do it again and ure infront of a jury facing jail.

there should be a trusted intrusive AC program that looks deep into your system to read what exe's are running linked to the game. which should be reported to the game users and and the admins and the AC program administrators.

gaming isnt a small time thing anymore, its a big industry worht billions. surly it should be illeagle to break the EULA or whatever u accept when u install the game that stats u wont modify game content....

jail the F***ers i say, dont care if it costs me anohter £1 in taxes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i consider cheating as minor infraction (in terms of global law, in terms of gaming sorta like 'execute him'wink_o.gif

compared to real crimes like crashing servers, hacking into others people computers or even worse (like murder)

so fines are enough (that made any gov happy = higher income for country)

p.s. @bravo6 PB now can use other cores/cpu in system so problem with CPU usage stays only for single core users ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×