Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I say again, TacticalGamer.com, BattlEye, and why we shouldn't use it.

    Originally posted by browna3
    obviously people can't grasp to concept of constructive feedback.

    thread locked

    If you have any CONSTRUCTIVE feed back, please post in the CAA forums.
    Please refer below:

    (OP)

    Originally posted by Kezei
    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.
    Constructive Feedback:

    Originally posted by Eightball
    My 1st experience with battleeye was when we logged onto Charlie (?) server this past weekend for one of the courses (maybe the tactical one?) Anyways immeadiately it booted 5 or so players upon connection. Those players had battleeye installed and latest ver of arma etc. And they all returned after Battleeye was disabled and everything worked fine for them. So right there is proof positive of the detriment of using that software. That was ~5 out of 30 people kicked for no good reason.
    Originally posted by Sc( + )pe
    BattlEye kicks me every time I lose connection to the server, even if that loss in connectivity is for less than a second.
    Originally posted by Dredge
    Originally posted by Sc( + )pe
    BattlEye kicks me every time I lose connection to the server, even if that loss in connectivity is for less than a second.
    It does that to try and reduce server lag and desync. In theory its a great thing, application of it seems touch and go
    Originally posted by Kezei
    Another thing I've noticed is that BattlEye occasionally doesn't initialize properly on connection to the server or on map change, and kicks the player. It's rare and intermittent, but i've seen it a few times now. Seems to work fine again after reconnection.
    Originally posted by jaynus
    1. Battleye kept me at "Wait for host" for the best part of 15 minutes tonight from errors

    2. I saw a few normal members get disconnected and not play (Ral to name one, didn't pay attention to other names)

    3. The Battleye updater is broken. We have to do manual updates for new versions fyi.
    Originally posted by HOTMACHINA
    I was experiencing a weird "jutter" for at least 60 minutes, never had it before, not sure if its related.
    Originally posted by fireship4
    Last nights session was disrupted by battleye. We lost many players to it, and it may well have been causing lag. Most of the losses seemed to be "Battleye client not responding", and one was kicked off because his custom face was too big. We know when people join (& leave?) it can slow down the server so it cant help this to have a program causing multiple players per hour to rejoin.
    Originally posted by seg[TDev
    ]I did notice a few regulars get kicked by BattleEye last night. Those of us who are not, can only imagine the commitment required to be an admin for TG and personally I think they have done an excellent job running things for the community. So if the admins want to test it out, let them and we can see where it takes things. But if something interrupts server traffic then maybe increasing your capacity of admins might solve the problem with having to log on to handle problems.

    Last I checked, topics relating to ArmA 2 were allowed to be posted within the General ArmA 2 forums. I do not see any rules being broken by people posting their experiences with BattlEye, unless there is a rule about posting something that an admin disagrees with.

    |TG-TFP|Kezei
    Ductus Exemplo

  • #2
    Re: I say again, TacticalGamer.com, BattlEye, and why we shouldn't use it.

    Kezei, A couple of observations on my part.

    1: I think you and I both know that reposting the contents of a locked thread feels somewhat wrong, I will leave it to the admin who closed the original to make the final decision however.

    2: On the questions of rules being broken regarding the post, the content, usage and moderation of the forums is at a forum admins discretion to my knowledge no rule trumps that position.

    3: The admin thread around this topic is many pages long, the community is being listened too, metrics are being gathered, admins are considering the results.

    4: The admins do not like to give themselves days of unpaid work, they undertake these projects to try and make all of our gameplay experience better, please try to work with the admins to reach the goal rather than drawing lines in the sand, this is what is meant by constructive critique.

    5: My personal take on this matter is that BattleEye is causing too much technical disruption, so I am playing my small part in looking for another route, the best way for me to present that argument is to document alternatives and show them working if possible, therefore I ask that if this thread does remain unlocked it is used for that objective.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: I say again, TacticalGamer.com, BattlEye, and why we shouldn't use it.

      The intention of this thread is to allow members of the community to continue to post and collaborate on any issues that they might find relating to BattlEye. If a player observes an issue, relating their experience to issues or observations by others may help pinpoint where the problem(s) lie. As was mentioned in the previous thread, we are attempting to help the BattlEye team locate issues.

      Originally posted by socomseal93
      By helping test Battle eye, we can provide much needed feedback to the developer so he can make it work better.




      The majority of the posts in the previous thread were constructive and were attempts at documenting issues observed.

      |TG-TFP|Kezei
      Ductus Exemplo

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: I say again, TacticalGamer.com, BattlEye, and why we shouldn't use it.

        The closure was geared more towards this comment

        My 2c:
        It's extremely disrupting and immersion-breaking when your teammates get d/c'd regularly. I lost more teammates to BE than OPFOR since it was added, I think. My TS is now broken since the last patch, I'm not sure why. We cannot choose no-respawn/no-JIP missions because of it either. BE is the limiter of missions, ruiner of well-made plans, and destroyer of morale. We must end it, destroy it. I suggest an LGB strike, no need to get up close and personal with it. Just give me a small squad, we'll designate it, kill it from 15K ft. Might need a nuke, but I'm fine leading a suicide mission on this target. Just give me the word.
        Yes, a majority of the players where posting feedback and it was greatly helping the admin team. However, after several warnings to remember to only post CONSTRUCTIVE feed back we get this. So, before anything else could happen or people start repsonding to his post and lose all concept of what the thread started out as, we closed it. By all means, open another one. We need the community feedback! We honestly do. We are trying to provide you guys with the best servers to play ArmA on. However, posts like the one above will get a thread closed. This subject is a tender one. You have people that like battleye, people that hate it and you have the Admins in the middle trying to sort out all of the facts. If you downright hate it, fine. Keep it to yourself. Help us out by finding ways to make it better or pointing out flaws in the system. But that can be done with a simple post:

        "Battleye does this when a player does this and it causes this that in turn lags the server" <----Good Post

        "I hate it. I dont want it. You shouldnt have it on Alpha. I want to kill it with a nuke" <----Bad post

        As long as the thread stays withing the OP it wont be closed. Just keep an eye on what you are actually typing.
        Last edited by Dredge; 03-18-2010, 10:34 AM.

        [unit][squadl][command2]

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

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: I say again, TacticalGamer.com, BattlEye, and why we shouldn't use it.

          i locked the thread, and i stand by it. i was not commenting on your posts, or any of the people who posted constructive feedback like requested.

          it was the ones who were just moaning.

          i also did also ask for people to post in the CAA thread.

          keep a thread on topic, it stays open. get enough people ignoring admins requests and it will get closed.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: I say again, TacticalGamer.com, BattlEye, and why we shouldn't use it.

            Before I weigh in on the actual merits of the post being discussed, it may be beneficial for both sides if threads are not locked in the future; rather, have the offending post removed thereby allowing more constructive posts in the thread to remain. I think that would help satisfy the concerns of the admin staff pertaining to inflammatory posts and the desire of the regular members to have a forum to discuss their viewpoints in a public manner.

            -Skin

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: I say again, TacticalGamer.com, BattlEye, and why we shouldn't use it.

              To be honest, I do not think the topic merits discussion. Trust the admins.
              |TG|Ghost02
              TG Pathfinder



              "I travel alone through the valley of the shadow of death, yet in my heart I carry no fear, for Gods hands will guide me to Truth and Honor."

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: I say again, TacticalGamer.com, BattlEye, and why we shouldn't use it.

                Well, I have racked my brain for an alternative to battleeye that will aid the admins in their duties in the same capacity, and I can discover none. This does not, however, negate the fact that batteleye does cause crashes during game startups, and may well be one of many reasons why certain missions prove unplayable. I would like to offer that we didn't have too bad an issue with cheaters prior to battleeye, and to my observations it hasn't changed much of anything for the better. It has, however, offered us numerous crashes. Now, without battleeye, of course, there is a heavier burden on our admins be they voted in or official TG admins, as they must sort through somebody's shortcut line to determine if they have anything unusual in there. It would seem to me that the trick here is to locate a method by which we can replace battleye with something as effective, and something that doesn't give you the boot when you lag. In that direction alone can we hope to find some reasonable and acceptable answers. Only after we explore those unknowns can we come back and say "Well. Screw it, just drop battleeye."

                "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" - Edmund Burke

                "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

                "Duty is the sublimest word in our language. Do your duty in all things. You cannot do more. You should never wish to do less." - R. E. Lee

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: I say again, TacticalGamer.com, BattlEye, and why we shouldn't use it.

                  My experiences thus far with battleeye:
                  I was kicked I believe due to having a custom face from alpha server due to battleeye.
                  I experienced some latency when battleeye did an autoupdate from ingame.

                  Note that I have to phrase my experiences with battleeye in a negative manner as when everything is functioning properly, it is indistinguishable from normal arma. Therefore, there is a colouring of the results towards the negative.

                  In regards to admins having the ability to rcon, would anyone assist me in understanding the difference between banning/kicking someone using the teamduck mananger and physically logging into arma? I would venture that the teamduck manager allows the maintenance of a ban list but cannot remove players already logged into the game, thus requiring someone to initiate a #kick command from ingame?

                  Secondly, could the admin staff post what for them are the priority features of battleeye that they need for rcon in order of importance? EG: 1) Banning 2)map change 3) server performance monitoring

                  Thanks,
                  Skin

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: I say again, TacticalGamer.com, BattlEye, and why we shouldn't use it.

                    Custom faces are off BTW, and will remain so, they should have been off already but somehow I must have missed them.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: I say again, TacticalGamer.com, BattlEye, and why we shouldn't use it.

                      you got kicked for custom faces because custom faces have been disabled.

                      the team duck manager is just a glorified GUI for what we can already do with the server.
                      the reason were looking into rcon, is because with the upcoming release of the pr:mini mod there is going to be another server for us to monitor. having Rcon makes thins so much easier. Were not using BE for the anti cheat capabilites

                      also, jeepo is a dirty irish ninja!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: I say again, TacticalGamer.com, BattlEye, and why we shouldn't use it.

                        Originally posted by Skin View Post
                        In regards to admins having the ability to rcon, would anyone assist me in understanding the difference between banning/kicking someone using the teamduck mananger and physically logging into arma? I would venture that the teamduck manager allows the maintenance of a ban list but cannot remove players already logged into the game, thus requiring someone to initiate a #kick command from ingame?

                        Secondly, could the admin staff post what for them are the priority features of battleeye that they need for rcon in order of importance? EG: 1) Banning 2)map change 3) server performance monitoring

                        Thanks,
                        Skin
                        To go along with bronwna, all the teamduck application lets us do is basically change the message of the day and edit the server config files. We already do this on our own and dont really need a program for it. What we are looking for is the ability to monitor the server, see who is playing, kick/ban problem players without having to physically login to ArmA. As browna said the addition of PR will mean another sever that we need to keep an eye on and having something like battleye that allows us to monitor the servers would really help us out. Changing the maps is a plus as well, this way all actions taken by the admins can be seen instantly on the server.

                        Edit: Skin your sig reminded me of something. With BE we where able to give players a reason for the kick. This was also shown in game. That is something that I like personally and would like to have in whatever Rcon tool we find that works.

                        [unit][squadl][command2]

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

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: I say again, TacticalGamer.com, BattlEye, and why we shouldn't use it.

                          I have been trying to avoid this topic for quite a while, mostly due to my bias against Battleye, but I truly understand what the admins want and need. Since BIS has not developed a proper RCon interface into ArmA2Server.exe neither on W32 or *nix sides, we only have the option to try to interface to our servers by the only DLL that is allowed to interact with the server instance, this being Battleye. At present programs such as teamduck are a glorified batch file that allows us to edit a configuration file then force a hard restart of the server instance to "make" those changes, it is not a injection of changes into the server instance. The Battleye interface and RCon tools are very rough works at present that do allow us to pass some basic console commands to the server instance, the available RCon GUI tools allow us to connect to multiple servers at the same time with the appropriate credentials and actually monitor the servers for a number of useful features. With these tools we are able to effect kicks and bans, based on guid and not just key, this basically means real per hardware blocking of affected users, no key file hack avoidance. It also allows the kick/bans to be implemented across all servers that the admins are choosing to run, so, special instance servers will maintain the same ban/kick list as the main servers, and so forth.

                          Battleye is not perfect, hell I cant stand it, but it is the best interface available at current time to interact with a server instance short of having someone logged into each server 24/7 and idling on the desktop of the server host to edit the configuration files on an as needed basis, copying the ban file between each server, and taking down the server to remove problem maps. Running an ArmA2 server is not the most forgiving of tasks, in fact compared to most other games made in the last 10 years, it is actually quite backwards to features most other server admins would take for granted.

                          Short of petitioning for a REAL RCon interface from BIS this is the only tool that any ArmA2 server admin has available to them, so I am completely sympathetic to their plight to have something that makes managing not just one but up to 3 servers at any given time a feasible task.
                          The views expressed herein are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of TacticalGamer.com or of any other TacticalGamer ArmA Administration member, reader discretion is advised.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: I say again, TacticalGamer.com, BattlEye, and why we shouldn't use it.

                            BTW Battle eye is off on the servers till further notice or we find something else

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: I say again, TacticalGamer.com, BattlEye, and why we shouldn't use it.

                              Sounds like BE should make an remote admin tool and have anticheat as another tool seperately.

                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X