Welcome to Tactical Gamer

User Tag List

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 37
  1. #1


    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada
    Posts
    48
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    TacticalGamer.com, BattlEye, and why we shouldn't use it.

    Before I begin, let me set one thing straight: I am not against cheat detection. I fully support it, and believe that it should exist, where it is needed. I've been doing a fair amount of research into BattlEye; it's advantages, and its disadvantages. The issue of bringing BattlEye into the TG servers is one that has been brewing for the past couple of days, with some of the admin team trying to bring it on, and others trying to take it down. In addition, much of the ArmA 2 community has been pushing their weight against adopting BattlEye.

    Now, I understand that there are advantages; administrators would have RCon access into the servers, allowing for remote controlling of the server, as well as greater access to server settings from within the game. It is an awesome feature that will provide the admin team greater control of the server at all times. But the costs outweigh the benefits. First, those using Steam cannot properly run the game and play on a BattlEye server. It is a problem that has existed since ArmA 1 (http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=67675) and exists to this day. The overlay that Steam provides is considered a hook into ArmA 2, and BattlEye will therefore kick those who use it. The problem is not as consistent as it was in ArmA 1, but it still exists and results in the intermittent kicking of those who play via Steam. Yes, you can disable the Steam overlay, but it is unfair to expect those who play via Steam to do so, seeing as the reason many purchased through Steam was for the Steam overlay ability. Second, TeamSpeak also a cause of intermittent kicks from BattlEye. Implementing BattlEye will discourage Teamspeak use, which will be a huge step back for the community. To further that, the intermitting kicking issue only gets use for those who use TeamSpeak Overlay.

    We all know that the very reason BattlEye exists is to detect and remove cheating players. Yes, it is a great tool, one that fits perfectly into the public-Devastation style of game play. But not one that fits into the TacticalGamer style of ArmA 2. ArmA 2 in itself is not a "run and gun" game. One player, whether they know where "all" the enemies are or not, would not be able to effectively engage them. The style of game play here encourages tactical, methodical team-based maneuvers. So, even if one player using cheats tried to convey information such as enemy locations all over the map, it would become obvious and the player would be reported and banned. If this information isn't shared, then the information obtained through these cheats would be useless. The very nature of this community detracts those who cheat from playing here.

    Now, I realize the big push is for RCon capabilities; however, I do not believe that BattlEye is the answer to the problem. There are several ArmA2 RCon tools being developed, and one of them is already available:

    http://www.teamduck.com/Gamine/ArmAManager.aspx

    (discussion found here: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthrea...t=77139&page=2)

    I implore the admin team to reconsider their decision to implement BattlEye, the issues it brings will cause greater frustration than it is worth, especially with alternatives available.

    |TG-TFP|Kezei
    Ductus Exemplo

  2.  
  3. #2

    tyrspawn's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    New York
    Age
    27
    Posts
    633
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: TacticalGamer.com, BattlEye, and why we shouldn't use it.

    An eloquent post, I agree with all arguments posited.

  4.  
  5. #3
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassVeteranCreated Album picturesCreated Blog entry

    browna3's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    France
    Age
    24
    Posts
    2,708
    Blog Entries
    27
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: TacticalGamer.com, BattlEye, and why we shouldn't use it.

    who said that battleye was permanent?

    from the moment we heard about the rcon functions we knew we would be testing it.

    At the moment this is all it is. a Test. the purpose of this test is to see if it does effect the server. most likely it will. However there have also been a few changes server side that might compensate for this.

    so before dismissing this completely. please help us in evaluating the functionality of battle eye.

    As for the link you posted kezi, that admin tool doesn't have rcon support. meaning that you still need an admin in game. with the battleye rcon, we are able to access the game server and kick/ban/restart missions etc without being in game and have more than one admin logged in at any time

  6.  

  7. #4

    Corporal_Cody's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Age
    22
    Posts
    334
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: TacticalGamer.com, BattlEye, and why we shouldn't use it.

    I absolutely agree with this Kezei.

    Whilst battle-eye is, in "theory", an excellent tool, and would obviously seem a necessity for the server and community, in practice and "reality", this is not the case.

    Though I may disagree with some points within the Kezei's post, I feel that his arguments outweigh those of thee admin staff in support of battle-eye. Yes, battle-eye can add r-con capability, and yes, it can add to cheat-prevention, but the fact that it can, and, rest assured, will, cause a lot of issues for a number of members in a currently retracting and ever more complicated community means that it will be more damaged to the community than conducive for the betterment of it.

    The R-con issue is an important one, and I believe we accept this. However, just as Kezei said, there ARE alternatives. We need to explore these alternatives BEFORE we jump into the breach.

    I support Kezei. I would rather not see battle-eye implemented to the server. And I fully hope that the administration, whether or not THEY might want the functionality, will take into account the wants and needs of the community

  8.  
  9. #5


    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    135
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: TacticalGamer.com, BattlEye, and why we shouldn't use it.

    I agree with the argument but i also dont know the counter argument. but just a side. I bought my game through steam and for whatever reason they stopped updating arma2 a while ago. Because of this i had to manually update my game just like any ol bloke and due to this the steam overlay does not work. If you play on tg you need to have your game fully updated and steam doesnt update. So all players who bought with steam and play on tg dont have the steam overlay any longer.

  10.  
  11. #6


    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada
    Posts
    48
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: TacticalGamer.com, BattlEye, and why we shouldn't use it.

    Quote Originally Posted by fusionpoo View Post
    I agree with the argument but i also dont know the counter argument. but just a side. I bought my game through steam and for whatever reason they stopped updating arma2 a while ago. Because of this i had to manually update my game just like any ol bloke and due to this the steam overlay does not work. If you play on tg you need to have your game fully updated and steam doesnt update. So all players who bought with steam and play on tg dont have the steam overlay any longer.
    Steam fully updates ArmA 2 through Steam, overlay still works.

    |TG-TFP|Kezei
    Ductus Exemplo

  12.  

  13. #7


    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    135
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: TacticalGamer.com, BattlEye, and why we shouldn't use it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kezei View Post
    Steam fully updates ArmA 2 through Steam, overlay still works.
    Not for me, weird. i had to manually do 1.5

  14.  
  15. #8
    Achievements:
    SocialYour first GroupRecommendation First ClassVeteranCreated Album picturesCreated Blog entry25000 Experience Points

    Dredge's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cloud 8.4
    Age
    29
    Posts
    7,244
    Blog Entries
    6
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: TacticalGamer.com, BattlEye, and why we shouldn't use it.

    Quote Originally Posted by browna3 View Post
    who said that battleye was permanent?

    from the moment we heard about the rcon functions we knew we would be testing it.

    At the moment this is all it is. a Test. the purpose of this test is to see if it does effect the server. most likely it will. However there have also been a few changes server side that might compensate for this.

    so before dismissing this completely. please help us in evaluating the functionality of battle eye.

    As for the link you posted kezi, that admin tool doesn't have rcon support. meaning that you still need an admin in game. with the battleye rcon, we are able to access the game server and kick/ban/restart missions etc without being in game and have more than one admin logged in at any time
    Before anyone else starts a complaint post read this. Its not permanent. We are just testing it. Its not permanent, we are just testing it. The main reason we are looking at it is for ease of access for admins. When a mission breaks, or someone is TK'ing or needs to be kicked for whatever reason we can do it instantly. Instead of you guys having to wait for us to log in to ArmA and search for his name or number then kick him.


    KnyghtMare ~You could always tell the person holding the gun to your head you would like to play on a different server...

  16.  
  17. #9
    Achievements:
    SocialYour first GroupRecommendation First ClassVeteranCreated Album pictures

    Jeepo's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Northern Ireland, UK
    Posts
    7,835
    Blog Entries
    4
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: TacticalGamer.com, BattlEye, and why we shouldn't use it.

    Guys, as stated, we are TESTING battle eye. All feedback that is ACTUALLY experienced here on the TG servers would be appreciated, but otherwise lets leave out the editorialising for now. If there ARE problems, and there very well might be, we will look into it and make our decisions from there. Rest assured we don't intend to make the steam guys lose out!

    Quote Originally Posted by Britt
    Push your chips into the middle of the table boys. Ride or die. Stats and rank have become a cancer. We are the cure.

  18.  

  19. #10

    Merula's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Somewhere in the italian alps
    Age
    28
    Posts
    645
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: TacticalGamer.com, BattlEye, and why we shouldn't use it.

    I think the reason people are so annoyed about BattleEye is not the testing (or even the program) itself, but the fact that there was no warning on the forum that BattleEye was being tested.
    Granted, even when we were warned that something would be tested (eg: the SLX test), there were still people complaining about it, but that's usually something else.

    Now with 200% more content!


  20.  
  21. #11

    Lorelei's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Havre de Grece, MD
    Age
    30
    Posts
    203
    Blog Entries
    6
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: TacticalGamer.com, BattlEye, and why we shouldn't use it.

    I am going to add my two cents, not that that's worth much in todays economy. I think both sides have valid reasons to promote their side of the argument, however I believe people should take a step back and look at all angles.

    The community is concerned about certain issues regarding connection issues and compatibility (I'm sure not all have been said.... yet) and rightly so based on previous versions. However, to not implement something because of what may or may not happen is not very practical. Even if it has been tested in the past. Look at it like making your own bullets. If you try a certain mix, and it doesn't work, you change something in that mix and try again. Mentioning the concerns to the admin team is, obviously, the best route to take in this scenario.

    On the other side, the admin team is concerned about ease of access for admins. They want to try something to make things a little easier on them in regards to accessing the servers quickly (and again, I'm sure there are other reasons they haven't mentioned). Again, rightly so. It would be wrong for the admins to completely ignore the community, since that's who they're ultimately here for, and plow through it whether there are problems or not. However, they have mentioned a few times that this is only for testing purposes and that they are going to be looking at it from all aspects to make sure that no one is slighted or refused from the servers.

    I also wanted to state I am neither for nor against the implementation of BattlEye and am an impartial participant in these matters. ^.^




    "Any views or opinions presented in this post are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of 'The Dredge'. Employees of 'The Dredge' are expressly required not to make defamatory statements towards 'The Dredge' and not to infringe or authorize any infringement of copyright or any other legal right by internet communications. Any such communication is contrary to company policy and outside the scope of the employment of the individual concerned. The company will not accept any liability in respect of such communication, and the employee responsible will be personally liable for any damages or other liability arising."

  22.  
  23. #12

    ForGlory&Pain's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    BC, Canada
    Age
    34
    Posts
    670
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: TacticalGamer.com, BattlEye, and why we shouldn't use it.

    PR for Arma2 will require an anti-cheat mecanism due to the nature of the competetive play it encourages and some people just can't grow up and have to "win".

    I am for testing battleeye in order to make it work, and work well, but only because the short term pain might be needed to help long term developement of the community and new gameplay aspects.

    But I would like to see the "need" for it only in regards to TvT heavy play. The current state of TG Arma2 makes cheating a rather wasted venture, as you have little to gain but notice. We are mostly here for the Sim, not the stats. So right now I don't mind testing, but if it's broke, it's broke. And if it can't be easily fixed, then we should have the will to let it go. If arma2pr needs it bad enough, they can make it work themselves.

    I don't think Rcon itself is justification enough unless just the server tools can be implemented seperately and not the problematic anti-cheat aspects.

  24.  

  25. #13
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassVeteranCreated Album picturesCreated Blog entry

    browna3's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    France
    Age
    24
    Posts
    2,708
    Blog Entries
    27
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: TacticalGamer.com, BattlEye, and why we shouldn't use it.

    thats what were testing for, server impact. like it has been said. if its bad, which it most probably will, then we know and we can remove it from the server and assist in further development of it.

  26.  
  27. #14
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation First ClassVeteranTagger Second Class10000 Experience Points

    socomseal93's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    In the suburbs outside of West Philadelphia
    Posts
    1,733
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: TacticalGamer.com, BattlEye, and why we shouldn't use it.

    By helping test Battle eye, we can provide much needed feedback to the developer so he can make it work better. It may work it may not but so far we have not had any issues with it. The test will be for 1 WEEK ONLY. If problems arise, we will remove Battle eye. While hacking on TG is a rare occurrence, it has happened before with server population killing results. We respect that some of you do not like battle eye but we ask that you at least give it a chance for this one week before putting it down. Please report any issues in the CAA forums.
    |TG-73rd|Socomseal
    |TG-73rd Member| Former TG Irregular ArmA Platoon Leader| Former TG ArmA Admin XO| TG Pathfinder - Spartan 1 |TGU ArmA Instructor |Former TG-18th Member| |Former TG-1st Member|

    "Its easy to argue about issues from afar. But until you have experienced the issue first hand, you have not seen all the facts."

    Carver you will be cut off for a long time before reinforcements can reach you "I am the reinforcements the main force is only coming to bring me body bags and to clean up the mess Im about to make" - General Carver

  28.  
  29. #15

    ForGlory&Pain's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    BC, Canada
    Age
    34
    Posts
    670
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: TacticalGamer.com, BattlEye, and why we shouldn't use it.

    Quote Originally Posted by socomseal93 View Post
    by helping test battle eye, we can provide much needed feedback to the developer so he can make it work better.
    qft

  30.  
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Back to top