ShrubMiK 0 Posted July 9, 2008 "how are we supposed to use all these addons for both modding and gaming, if they cause ejects from servers." Encourage makers of legitimate addons to get them signed? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
baddo 0 Posted July 9, 2008 @Baddo: BattlEye is already enabled by default. It is? If my memory doesn't fail me horribly now, I can remember how the ArmA patch installer asked me if I want to install it. From ARMAUpdate_1_14_readme.txt: Quote[/b] ]===BATTLEYE===This patch will automatically offer you to install anti cheating software for online games to your ARMA working folder. If you decide not to install Battleye, your patch still will be working but you may not be able to join game servers that will have installed Battleye software for increased anti cheating protection. It will install all BattlEye content to a folder "BattlEye" (default is C:\Program Files\Bohemia Interactive\ArmA\BattlEye or C:\Program Files\Atari\ArmA\BattleEye). If BattlEye was installed, it will be securing online sessions hosted on your server (requiring all clients to have BattlEye also installed) unless it is disabled in server config using line "battlEye = 0;" NOTE: BattlEye itself will be run from ARMA's application data folder (default is C:\Documents and Settings\[user Name]\Local Settings\Application Data\ArmA\BattlEye) to have write access in order to be able to download/install updates and/or create logs and other BE-related files. In my opinion that means that BattlEye is an optional component and thus is not enabled by default. I get that you mean "when it is installed, then it is enabled by default" but I think that is not relevant. As long as the user can choose not to have it installed, then it is not enabled by default as I see it. What I am suggesting is that in the next game (or in the next ArmA 1 patch) that BIS creates, this kind of anti-cheat tool should be installed without asking the user if the user wants it. No harm done if then the server admins can go and specifically disable it if that is really what they want to do. I am even doubtful if leaving them that option is really necessary, but it is a middle road and probably acceptable for more people than my more radical suggestion to not allow them to disable it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
$able 2 Posted July 9, 2008 I see what you mean, but BattlEye is still a 3rd-party software with its own EULA that the user has to accept. Therefore you have to give the user the possibility to decide whether or not to install BE. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
baddo 0 Posted July 9, 2008 Why can it not be so that if the user doesn't accept the installation of BattlEye, then the whole installation of the game is cancelled? Because BIS can write into the ArmA EULA "use of BattlEye is mandatory". You can show both EULA's separately and the user has to accept both if he wants the installation to continue. What problem could there be with this approach? If the BIS ArmA EULA specifically says that the game shall not be used without having BattlEye installed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Messiah 2 Posted July 9, 2008 No, because the EULA attached to Battleeye is a little to 'free' for some people's liking. I for one didn't install battleye because 1. I only play MP in a closed community/clan/private server so I have no need for it, and 2. I wasn't going to agree to allow BIS access to my HDD through battleeye, or not in the very 'lapse' way it was worded in the EULA. What if you only play SP? Why then should the install of the game be linked to a 3rd party piece of software which is only designed for MP? How would BIS justify people having to install a piece of MP software onto their PC's, when all you want to do is play SP? I'm curious why you're pushing this issue so hard? If a person doesn't want battleeye installed, thats their prerogative, and not for you or BIS to dictate otherwise. Punkbuster is also entirely optional, but you'll be hard pressed to get onto many games that use it, servers. Thus the people who want to join public servers that use BE will have to install BE. Those who don't want to install BE make that choice. Why should I be forced to installing an extra program I have no use for? The only person who loses out with BE not being compulsary are the people who choose not to install it, and cannot access secured servers. So at what point does this concern you? How does this affect you? You can still happily play on public secured servers, and those who wish not to have BE can continue to play on unsecured or private servers (or not play MP at all) By all means make servers use it by default, and by all means make those who install it use it by default. We used to run a private server over at VCB, and half the time we spent on the server, we spent watching and banning cheaters. I am fully aware of why BE is a good thing and why it should be made available to everyone. I just don't agree with having it forced upon you. What harm has the 'choice' done in ArmA thus far? I can't see one con with that choice. Those who run BE-less servers, do so at their own risk. You can stay away from them and be blissfully happy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
$able 2 Posted July 9, 2008 No, because the EULA attached to Battleeye is a little to 'free' for some people's liking. I for one didn't install battleye because 1. I only play MP in a closed community/clan/private server so I have no need for it, and 2. I wasn't going to agree to allow BIS access to my HDD through battleeye, or not in the very 'lapse' way it was worded in the EULA. Actually it is as user-friendly as possible given the fact that BE requires access to various parts of your system to be able to detect all hacks. The required access is quite limited for most hacks, but in case of more advanced hacks this might be different. Either way, the EULA clearly states that your privacy is not violated. I am not trying to convince you or anything, because it is your right not to install BE, but I just wanted to clarify this. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Messiah 2 Posted July 9, 2008 Sorry, I think it may have come across a little accusatory in my last post. I am aware, and trust that BIS aren't about to invade my privacy or violate it, but the point was that it allows you access, and I know for some they can't allow this due to the nature of their work, and some won't put that much trust in a company (again thats entirely their prerogative). The main reason for me is that I don't venture onto public servers, so felt no need to install it. Whilst the access agreement was a concern, it probably wouldn't have prevented me from installing BE if I wanted to go onto public servers. That decision harms no one (except possibly myself If I suddenly had a desire to join a public server), hence why I feel that this choice should remain, and hopefully so does BIS. Out of interest, I assume BE can be installed post patch if you said no during the patch installation? Is it just a case of running the patch again, or is their an exe somewhere one can simple run instead? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Call911-AGE- 0 Posted July 9, 2008 Imported ArmA from Germany at German release, tried stayin with this game, but over a yr an a half later after having a server an running with BE an without BE no common ground can be found. Had BE installed now alls I get is random BE init failed errors. Not exactly the direction I was hoping for ArmA(uninstalled) hope they fair better with ArmAII. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted July 9, 2008 @Baddo: BattlEye is already enabled by default.@Special Ed: Signature checking is done by ArmA, not by BattlEye. Thanks Guess i posted in wrong area then, sorry about that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rexxenexx 0 Posted July 10, 2008 I like the fact that BE is separate from ArmA. If I have a LAN party I don't need Sig or BE. I could punch the cheater in the face. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michael_Wittman 0 Posted July 11, 2008 From my point of view one of the mothers of this problem is that Keys (or IDs) are not real IDs there are only algorithm accoplish IDs..so maybe BIS aswell as many other companys should start a closed ID system: each game bought online got a random single key not acomplishing an algorithm but being a single ID (so you really pay for something)... The problem is that if for example there are a million keys on the database and 100.000 online verifing requests it can take quite long to log-in (just maybe...I dont really work on this...I just wish I could). But...you cannot cheat the whole world for a website.. I mean if you type ww.xxxxx.xx (where the x is the site and extension) there is a worldwide netword that sends you to yyy.yyy.yyy.yyy (wher y is the IP address of the computer cotaining the web page) so...if anyone is smart enough to make a joint of all game industry (and software) to go there....we should never suffer piracy (and cheater by extension) again. To simplify...each player buy a key...that identifies him in the WWW for that game...if his key got banned for a server he will never be able to join that server again unless the admin of that server erases the ban. Valve (Counter Strike) have been facing the problem for some 10 years at least...and they took the right direction but since the key is not real and just obbeys an algorithm it can allways be surplanted.....and the story goes on.... There is no better anticheat than a human admin with the right reliable tools. If this is a common problem to many many game companies WTH they dont make a common efford to safe their money? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
