PDA

View Full Version : Should we let Epic take care of our INI:s?


Wowbagger
22nd Jul 2005, 06:57 AM
Would an expanded Master Server that could handle our Accounts AND our inis make the game harder to cheat in?
Just interested in your ideas on this.

edhe
22nd Jul 2005, 07:52 AM
Um, as long as i can still used pipedweaponswitch, a different FOV and still allows mutes/mods to be made... :con:

Wowbagger
22nd Jul 2005, 08:38 AM
I think i got it a bit wrong :o
Im after the cheats thats out there.
I guess theyre altering the exe arent they?

Sir_Brizz
22nd Jul 2005, 08:43 AM
Yep, altering the game code, not the INI. The INI does, however, have some weird stuff you can set.

Wowbagger
22nd Jul 2005, 09:03 AM
Ok im absolutely no coder AT ALL so go easy on me now :)

Lets say i start UT200x, login on my account on the Master Server, the MS checks my EXE.

Now i thought it wasnt possible to alter the exe while its running or is it?

Sir_Brizz
22nd Jul 2005, 09:16 AM
they don't.

What they do is direct the EXE to execute code that is outside of it's regular scope. Usually this means adding a call to a different DLL than what it would normally call that contained all the same information plus whatever they want it to do.

What AntiTCC has the ability to do is verify all the files in your System directory and ensure that it matches up with the current MD5 (so you must have the latest patch).

The only way to get rid of cheating is to verify the files against an MD5 check, which takes alot of time. That's why Punkbuster is so worthless because there is no way they can manage every single game they write the software for and so have to write generic protection routines that are not guaranteed to work. AntiTCC's advantage in this case is that it runs from within the game and is tuned to the game.

Wowbagger
22nd Jul 2005, 02:00 PM
Ok, i guess i, with more people getting faster connections and more and more games seems to have tighter accounts, hoped there was profit to be made anticheatwise.

But if youre as well informed as you seem it doesnt look like there is.

Sir_Brizz
22nd Jul 2005, 03:30 PM
well, something like AntiTCC should be built into the game. Punkbuster is DEFINTIELY not an alternative and the built in anti-cheat protection is neutered at best.

1337
22nd Jul 2005, 06:16 PM
No. If admins don't want you to use certain .ini settings, they should have the power to disable it; that is all that is really important.

The inis and other files changeable by text editors are awesome. And players should be able to make any adjustments to their inis through the console while in single player. Don't take freedom away from the competent.

klasnic
23rd Jul 2005, 09:21 AM
It's my underatanding of md5 that everything released for the game is assigned a unique md5(identity?) which the master server can then verify for changed packages is that right Brizz or am I totally of the beaten track?

As for ini(s) well I guess ppl like to have control over certain aspects of the game (me included) so I couldn't see that catching on. There should be something though to ensure anyone playing online (including servers) is at least patched to the newest version so any cheat protection updates are in everyone's game. Brizz' idea for AntiTCC or something being built into the game should certainly be considered - Am sure it has been :)

Wowbagger
23rd Jul 2005, 09:31 AM
Well i meant it more for the inis to be saved together with the account at the Master Server so to speak.
We should still be able to edit them etc.

Never mind, i completely got it wrong anyway.

Sir_Brizz
23rd Jul 2005, 12:21 PM
It's my underatanding of md5 that everything released for the game is assigned a unique md5(identity?) which the master server can then verify for changed packages is that right Brizz or am I totally of the beaten track?
No that's right. The MD5 is a unique identifier for a file that takes forever to scan and even longer to break. More info here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Md5

klasnic
23rd Jul 2005, 04:07 PM
Excellent shtuff, thanks Brizz reading it through now :2thumb:

JaFO
23rd Jul 2005, 04:09 PM
*eh* no it doesn't ... md5 has been broken :
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/03/more_hash_funct.html

Of course games don't require as much security as real-world applications, but it makes one think I'd say.
Estimates are 8 hours on a mere 1,6 GHz pc ...

klasnic
23rd Jul 2005, 04:15 PM
Thanks for even more info, JaFO - had a good read on that too - I guess we know nothing is secure for long ;)

*Ponders why a Russian user added a comment in Russian under the English debate* :confused: :)

zynthetic
24th Jul 2005, 03:22 AM
ini settings are about the same as a string of console commands, even aliases like directional movement.
If there's a problem w/ a particular ini entry where it causes a big issue it could be fixed in a patch by simply disabling it's console counterpart. It's even possible to disable the console entirely (some mods have).

rhirud
27th Jul 2005, 05:22 AM
A tricky one. Because if the master server is down, we can still play on favourite servers, as it is at the moment.

If the master server goes down, and you are forced to log in via a master server, then you can't play.

The other side to this is one of my pet topics; how a game is so much better if you play with players of the same standard as you.

To allow this
a. There has to be a good enough stats system. UT2004 has this in place.
b. There needs to be servers that cater only for players of of a certain ELO range. So there would be 0-30,30-60, 60-90, 90-120 and >120 servers for example.

So those who don't want to play with the unwashed can do that and not whinge about noobs. But far more importantly, new players will play against other new players; and won't be owned. At the moment I'm learning to play Tam; and since I'm an ONS player I'm effectively a novice. My ELO is 40 wich is about right - I'll mincmeat brand new players, but established players will make mincemeat out of me too. But a game with players of the same standard is far more rewarding.

Certainly, there should be a mixed economy of servers; but given that the hardcore of ut2004 players will also be awsome ut2007 players; it's vital that the newer players get a creche.

If you can make up new accounts easily so that you can practice against slow moving targets (i.e. join a novice server and pretend you are a novice) - that will cause problems. So there has to be a way of limiting account generation; and holding a central register of accounts.