Gogster (DayZ)

RayPugh made that interesting quote in reply to a different thread. He got me thinking. Is the lack of co-op/willingness to wait and see if someone can help you out or you help them out because the zombies are not enough of a threat? If the zombies were considerably tougher, in a variety of ways, that it became suicide to even attempt to go to a supermarket, hospital or military encampment without colleagues, would that encourage team play? Would that be the catalyst for people grouping up and stop shooting each other so often? Or would that flood the forums with "teh zombie iz too hard waaaaaa?" Over to you fine people.

No one truly knows what you meant but humour clearly passes you by. Dimwit.

There seems to be some confusion as the whether the hook for BE bypass logs anything at all... Guess you can catch the dumb-asses with this.

Not streaming now.

That's what you should have wrote :lol:

I've seen that and lambasted it already. It is no way like PB CVAR checks, for a start you're scanning on script command names... it looks like a direct answer to a cheat I've seen recently on the web. Unless you can grab the MD5 for the file, your essentially saying ooh shouldn't do that - kick - cheater renames script command - comes back on, fruitless. You're blocking the script not the cheat file. Public cheats always get detected fast and in answer to your BF3 line at those admins can implement PB custom checks and screenshots!

... Does anyone else work on these forums? Specifically in the development industry? Try rolling out that excuse for your software on a regular basis.

BE fundamentally lacks the ability to send data to a remote client, take screenshots and load custom checks. How can you say that PB wouldn't do a better job?

You don't get global banned for a racist comment. Those brothers sure are troublesome.

Not always - it's a chance.

Hope springs eternal... ;)

I'm holding out for the moment for a statement from the dev team.

I don't trust you and you're wrong.

Admins need to be able to ADMIN! Yes they do. The dev stance on this issue is wrong. Can we step away from worrying about the odd idiot admin and think about all the servers that are suffering with hackers at the moment? Such blinkered loyalty to a mod who have said diddly-squat on the issue.

Gaming Deluxe run very good servers: http://www.gamingdeluxe.co.uk OT Good help for new server admins.

You're insane. On so many levels.

Some people like, some people don't like. 'Tis life.

There's two sides to every story, lets hear it.

I still find it inconceivable that the only argument against kicking/banning/locking is admin abuse. You'd think this is the first game people have ever requested RCON commands for... :rolleyes:

Have a look over these forums for FPS issues, there's plenty of posts discussing it. I think many of the suggestions for boosting your performance are going to point to your RAM.

Good grief :rolleyes:

Furthermore - this wall of silence doesn't help. At least on the PsB forums PB reps would come on and update the community as to the state of the checks they were looking to implement.

There's no community as such for the prevention and detection of such cheats (think PBBans & PsB), these communities took years to establish and funding to source the servers for ban, hash and screenshot technologies. If the answer from the community, and there's no indication from anyone here of the veracity of those claims, that BE is trying to defend against things it was never written for - we simply must look at other solutions. If that is the locking down of servers and the development of a white list, then so be it. On another note - it's highly amusing some of the posts in here lambasting commentators for their lack of understanding BE or how anti-cheat works, whilst making glaring inaccuracies about how the cheats and anti-cheats operate.

The simple conclusion is that BE is not fit for purpose. They are extremely slow to issue updates, it has no other functionality than it's core engine - it is simply a poor anti-cheat solution. The writers clearly think that that writing a check for a specific script file is adequate to defend against it's use. It is not. We're having a discussion right now as to whether to continue hosting DayZ.

A little bit of digging around and I'm totally signed up to the locking theory and creation of a whitelist. A simple Google search for ***s produces numerous results within 2 minutes I can download one, create an MD5 for it. Tell me, where do I put this check? Nowhere. Because the utterly pointless BattlEye doesn't even have the ability to add custom generated checks. There's no screenshots, player name facility - nothing. It is an utter waste of time. Spend 2 minutes researching DayZ/Arma hacks, they are laughing about how easy it is to bypass - hell the the BE bypass they didn't even have to create a DLL injection for it, they bypassed it with a SCRIPT!!!!! Why o why Behemia chose to go with this turd that is BattlEye is utterly beyond me. You may as well wrote: private bool TestForHacks() { bool hacks = false; if (!hacks) { return false; // lol } }