BattlEye: does it really work?

[Clash]

How can you judge over BE if you have no clue? No, it has no faults atm, this is the truth.

Also Clash, are you serious? You do know that # stands for "number"? Its just a number to identify the exact violation.

Yes I was serious, I thought it would actually indicate the memory address that was corrupted, which 0 would make no sense at all

[Sunshine]

doh the corrupted memory kicks are kicks for hacking................................ battleye is bypassable like every other anti cheatengine

[JonWood007]

I played during 1.3.1. and hackers were somewhat common. Mainly movement hacks where people fly around the map at like 500 mph. Now I see few hackers. I see lots of people being booted for stupid reasons, but I also have only seen 1 or 2 hackers since 1.4.0 on. Granted I didnt play the whole time since 1.4.0, but Ive seen far less. I think it works although it seems oversensitive. Its better than the alternative, a too lenient antihack system where hackers roam free. Ive dealt with games like that. Trust me, theyre not fun at all.

[Clash]

I played during 1.3.1. and hackers were somewhat common. Mainly movement hacks where people fly around the map at like 500 mph. Now I see few hackers. I see lots of people being booted for stupid reasons, but I also have only seen 1 or 2 hackers since 1.4.0 on. Granted I didnt play the whole time since 1.4.0, but Ive seen far less. I think it works although it seems oversensitive. Its better than the alternative, a too lenient antihack system where hackers roam free. Ive dealt with games like that. Trust me, theyre not fun at all.

IMO, this can be explained because between and 1.3.1 and 1.4 there was a large time space, so there was kinda a lot of time to develop hacks... The main reason I believe I don't see much hackers are because it hasn't been widely spammed/advertised/distributed

I wouldn't really be surprised if there was another "era" of no soldat releases and hacks got popular again...
Of course, I hope that with BE it gets harder to hack...

[Xocide]

just an FYI 1.4.2 is hackable and BE dose not detect it. gg ppl

[urraka]

I played during 1.3.1. and hackers were somewhat common. Mainly movement hacks where people fly around the map at like 500 mph. Now I see few hackers. I see lots of people being booted for stupid reasons, but I also have only seen 1 or 2 hackers since 1.4.0 on. Granted I didnt play the whole time since 1.4.0, but Ive seen far less. I think it works although it seems oversensitive. Its better than the alternative, a too lenient antihack system where hackers roam free. Ive dealt with games like that. Trust me, theyre not fun at all.

IMO, this can be explained because between and 1.3.1 and 1.4 there was a large time space, so there was kinda a lot of time to develop hacks... The main reason I believe I don't see much hackers are because it hasn't been widely spammed/advertised/distributed

I wouldn't really be surprised if there was another "era" of no soldat releases and hacks got popular again...
Of course, I hope that with BE it gets harder to hack...

As far as i understood, if any hack gets popular, BE can be updated to handle it, without the need of any release.

[DeMo]

Exactly, you will never seen a "banned for speed hack" message. Corrupt memory message IS the hack.

I know Leo.
But the kick messages could be a lot better.

Players have to be allowed to update and this takes time (might become shorter in the future though).

So what you're telling me is that those "Client failed to update" kicks are in fact cheaters getting kicked by BE? Up to now I thought that "Client failed to update" was some kind of network bug (in the player's machine) that prevented his BE client to register. Why don't you change the kick message to something more explanatory like "BattlEye: playername has been kicked for cheating"?

These are no buggy violations. "Corrupted memory" includes hacks.

Is there a possibility that some program (not a hack of course) running in the player's machine would interfere with Soldat/BE and he would get kicked for corrupted memory #0? We have a well known player in the brazilian community that has this problem and he swears he's not using any hacks. I already told him to shutdown his antivirus, antispyware, MSN and any other program while playing Soldat but he had no success, he still gets kicked for corrupted memory everytime. Yeah, he tried with a fresh 1.4.2 installation (so the possibility that he could be using the 1.4.1 BE update on 1.4.2 is discarded).

[Carlitos]

i seen a hacker today but in a NO BE server so...its normal, but he was banned via vote kick

[SpiltCoffee]

Players have to be allowed to update and this takes time (might become shorter in the future though).

So what you're telling me is that those "Client failed to update" kicks are in fact cheaters getting kicked by BE? Up to now I thought that "Client failed to update" was some kind of network bug (in the player's machine) that prevented his BE client to register. Why don't you change the kick message to something more explanatory like "BattlEye: playername has been kicked for cheating"?

Most of the time, it is a networking/renaming problem on the users end, but you may get someone who has messed with their BE, and they've made it so it won't update (to make sure that what they did doesn't disappear).

If we just had "kicked for cheating" messages, there'd be a lot more complaining going on, and $able wouldn't be able to help because no one would know what they were kicked for. Trust me, the current system is fine.

These are no buggy violations. "Corrupted memory" includes hacks.

Is there a possibility that some program (not a hack of course) running in the player's machine would interfere with Soldat/BE and he would get kicked for corrupted memory #0? We have a well known player in the brazilian community that has this problem and he swears he's not using any hacks. I already told him to shutdown his antivirus, antispyware, MSN and any other program while playing Soldat but he had no success, he still gets kicked for corrupted memory everytime. Yeah, he tried with a fresh 1.4.2 installation (so the possibility that he could be using the 1.4.1 BE update on 1.4.2 is discarded).

The RAM in his computer could be defective (I think $able mentioned defective RAM as a reason for this at one stage).

Get him to scan for viruses, however, and if he's a computer wiz, suggest that he looks through his processes in Task Manager for anything that may look suspicious (best place to locate spyware and viruses).

[$able]

What SpiltCoffee said.

Also, you mix up "Client not responding" and "Failed to update". Neither of them can technically happen at the moment if you installed 1.4.2 correctly. The first could happen if your Soldat crashes though.

[DeMo]

Well, I never had any problems with BE but I see a lot of people getting kicked everytime with the "not responding" and "Failed to update" messages.
You say this cannot happen if the person "installed 1.4.2 correctly". I guess most people simply downloads the installer from soldat.pl and runs it, what could be wrong about this? What installation problems could lead to BE kicks?

[$able]

If you successfully installed 1.4.2 there wont be a problem.

Most people with problems applied the 1.4.1 BE update package, which doesnt work in 1.4.2.

[CAATINGA]

Also Clash, are you serious? You do know that # stands for "number"? Its just a number to identify the exact violation.

Is that a private information? I've seen already Corrupted Memory #0 and #1.. what's the exact violation of each of them? Is there any other number then 0 and 1?
thanks

[SpiltCoffee]

I've seen it go up to 3 before. It just signifies the type of memory corruption, and helps $able to help determine possible causes for the error if you are not hacking... maybe.

[$able]

Yes, exactly, its for identification purposes.

[Geoffrey]

I think it is working simply because there are so few hackers these days when I'm playing. I think I saw 1 or 2 the first week after 1.4 but no more after that.

Good job $able and thanks for applying your skills here.

[Clash]

Yes, exactly, its for identification purposes.

What's the explanation again that you can't tell us what means each of those errors?

[$able]

Each number stands for a different scan.

I am not going into more details.

[Shmoo]

I never use to see hacking before 1.4 and I still don't often see hacks in BE servers, but it seems like now if you don't have a BE protected server, you're practically inviting hackers in. They just flood in all the time if there's no BE.

[Domokun]

It works quite good. Not 100% hack-proof but there is no such system yet and never going to be.

There is never gonna be a 100 % anit-hack programs , since hackers develop new programs that anti-hack programs dont detect. Thank god for hackers.