Do you wish to have BattlEye in ArmA II?

[GLeek 10]

where are proof than battleeye stop hack and cheating ?

i has never been sure of that.

[Dead3yez 0]

BattleEye caused a lot of troubles for me and many the servers that I played on.

I would like to see an alternative or at least a vastly improved version.

[Tatarkas 10]

this is my persional opinion and nothing else :

i think best would be to have PB, BE and VAC optionable for ARMA 2 where admin decides what and if he want use some anticheat next to signatures ...

This have ceratin advantages, but you (either players and BIS) would also have to solve much more problems.

[Deadfast 43]

BattleEye caused a lot of troubles for me and many the servers that I played on.

I would like to see an alternative or at least a vastly improved version.

I believe you never played a PunkBuster protected game then?

Results 1 - 10 of about 197,000 for punkbuster problem.

[Dead3yez 0]

I believe you never played a PunkBuster protected game then?

:raisebrow: Well you believe wrong and I have no idea what drew you that conclusion.

Here are some I have played:

BF2, BF:Heroes, FC2, COD2, COD4, RS: vegas, AA2, AA3, NFS: Pro Street, F.E.A.R, War Rock.

PB is not perfect, no anti-cheat is perfect. Yes, I have had problems with punkbuster, many.

There are many other alternatives aside PB.

My view on battleye is pretty much the same as this:

Maybe I should have added a 3rd option, YES! if it don't kick me.

Results 1 - 10 of about 150 for deadfast random google statistic. (0.30 seconds)

Edited August 15, 2009 by Dead3yez

[Yoma 0]

Maybe they need the server to get to a certain point of development before they incorporate it.

Anyway, voted yes.

[xxNimrodxx 10]

Can i say that the BattleEye was a piece of crap?

I mean, when it came out with a patch, u just needed to open with winrar the patch, open BE exe with some program i don't remember, change it, and repack it all and install the patch. This way your game believed the patch was ok, multiplayer servers too, and u were FREE to roam around with ur hacked BE, and no one was ever able to notice WHO was the cheater then again. Simply useless.

[Deadfast 43]

:raisebrow: Well you believe wrong and I have no idea what drew you that conclusion.

Sorry for quoting all the way back, but since this thread was already bumped...

Battlefield 2.

Never caught any cheaters, only annoyed honest players (endless "handshaking failed" errors).

[Yoma 0]

Can i say that the BattleEye was a piece of crap?

I mean, when it came out with a patch, u just needed to open with winrar the patch, open BE exe with some program i don't remember, change it, and repack it all and install the patch. This way your game believed the patch was ok, multiplayer servers too, and u were FREE to roam around with ur hacked BE, and no one was ever able to notice WHO was the cheater then again. Simply useless.

Well i never saw this ingame. Can you prove this in Arma1 on a BE protected server combined with signature checking, where shall we meet?

[flufball 10]

The thing about anti-cheat software is that there are so many inherent compatibility issues that you will always end up with a number of people with issues regardless of the software being used.

At the end of a day, an anti-cheat program has to deal with the various hardware configurations people have, the drivers that come with their hardware, the game engine, various versions of operating systems and all sorts of third party software (including the various versions of the game itself) running in the background.

To make matters worse, most of the above can be used in various forms to create cheats or to provide the means for hooks and bypasses to slip by the usual scanning methods. The more restrictive you become, the more conflicts and issues with the program people will have.

It can be anything from simple things like routers not liking the communication between the client-side software and the master servers (which is quite common in anti-cheat software) to more dubious things like issues with specific drivers and hardware configuration.

On top of all of this you have human error, and the more you automate a system the more human error will appear. When the expansion for the first Call of Duty was released (in the States, those of us in Europe had to wait) someone forgot to put in some variable somewhere that meant that the master servers where picking up a large number of people running the new expansion on release day as cheating. Thus a large number of players where globally hardware banned for a day.

This particular example always sticks in my mind because at the time I was still working as a volunteer at a software company what was, had (and still is) producing an anti-cheat product of their own. I remember it because one of our policies, one that remains to today is that we try to keep as much human involvement as possible. When bans are given, they're not automatic on the spot, instead they are investigate by a team of humans before a decision is made.

This was in contrast to PunkBuster which is automatic, so at the time people where flooding the forums saying they where banned a large number people who considered themselves “experts†on PunkBuster took a sneering attitude to the issue with the usual “you shouldn't have been cheating†comments showing up left right and centre.

That sneering attitude from members of the public and the lack of apology and being unable to admit that they where wrong afterwards is something that has kept the incident stuck in my mind for all these years and was one of my own personal points to avoid when I was still heavily involved in the anti-cheat community.

Even Balance, to their credit, where quick to sort out the issue, but it's a good example of how much a simple human error can also be the cause of a problem. The removal of humans does not solve the problem as often it may require a human to identify their own mistakes.

On top of all the hardware and software issues that are bound to spring up there are the usual cost concerns and what the intended purpose is.

A game might only be designed to sell a lot of copies, in which case a highly robust anti-cheat product that catches nearly everything might not be the ideal choice because it may limit the amount of people playing a game.

Likewise, a game may be intended to be a showcase example of a new multiplayer series which needs to go down really well, in which case a general all purpose anti-cheat product that catches a lot but still lets some major cheats through won't be the ideal choice.

PunkBuster, as an example, is fairly widespread. It doesn't stop everything and has some major issues with (a now common thing) commercial bypasses but it's shown to work with most computers, it isn't that restrictive and it's a name people recognise.

The important thing though is that regardless of what anti-cheat program a game runs it cannot replace good server admins. You still need the admins to check things like screenshots, to be paying attention to players to make sure nothing dodgy is going on and to generally be seen to have a presence.

[GLeek 10]

Can i say that the BattleEye was a piece of crap?

I mean, when it came out with a patch, u just needed to open with winrar the patch, open BE exe with some program i don't remember, change it, and repack it all and install the patch. This way your game believed the patch was ok, multiplayer servers too, and u were FREE to roam around with ur hacked BE, and no one was ever able to notice WHO was the cheater then again. Simply useless.

LMAO , didn't know that :D