Home » General Discussions » General Discussion » CarrierII's avatar
CarrierII's avatar [message #389522] |
Sun, 07 June 2009 09:02 |
Pyr0man1c
Messages: 186 Registered: April 2009
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
I'm just wondering what is in your avatar?I can't quite make it out.
"Sapere Aude- Dare to be wise"
AmunRa | and its all this "drama" that will one day end renegade...
|
Quotesv00d00 | A question regarding RenGuard. Because it's a client/server application, what will stop the legions of people who cheat, and can crack apps, from reverse engineering it down to it's core protocol / encryption (which I'll assume it has), and duplicating it, so that they have their own client which responds to the server with all the correct info for an unpatched Renegade, but in fact is patched.
Personally, I think you should write a server-side only anti-cheat, which hooks the networking routines in Renegade. From there, using either the help of your staff who worked on creating Renegade, or from knowledge aquired while working with the network code in Renegade, create a system to monitor hit locations (did they REALLY hit, based on calculations by the anti-cheat (stopping BH)), how much damage are they claiming, vs how much damage their currently selected weapon really does, etc.
Then, add rate-of-fire checking, complete w/ lag tolerance (since lagged client will of course, upon delag, seem to fire faster, etc), and option to simply "edit" the incoming packets, to filter out the cheat (reduce damage, stop bullets, etc), or kick-ban the cheater (admins decision, based on anti cheat config).
Is it just me, or does that make more sense?
The flaw to Renegade of course, which is the core to the cheats, is that unlike most other games, Renegade lets the CLIENT decide hit locations, damage, RoF, etc. Vs others which say, "ok, the client fired their pistol along this trajectory. Did they hit something? How much damage did they do to that target if so. Report findings to clients".
My only concern, is that there will be alot more teams of people ripping apart the hard work of your small team, and undoing what you have done. Can you keep up writing fixes / completely rewriting the protocol to counter them once they have created their OWN complete anti-RenGuard client? If not, consider the server-side only method, and solve it once and for all, with the only version changes being to fix bugs, and not complete rewrites which will really piss admins off (if it takes this long for the initial, how long after the cheaters create their own client to counter it will your rewrite take to do?).
- v00d00
|
ELiT3FLyR | ill say this again to all the TT people actually working on the patch. all you have to do is fix the bugs in the game. This is your role. dont get involved in a pointfix debate that you can never win (spoony has never managed to win one and hes a decent player) nor bother suggesting solutions for the faults in pointfix. just fix the damn bugs and you will all be remmebered as renegade heroes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: CarrierII's avatar [message #389632 is a reply to message #389522] |
Sun, 07 June 2009 18:36 |
|
Dover
Messages: 2547 Registered: March 2006 Location: Monterey, California
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
Everyone knows Battlecruisers > Carriers.
DarkDemin wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 19:19 | Remember kids the internet is serious business.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: CarrierII's avatar [message #389670 is a reply to message #389665] |
Mon, 08 June 2009 04:57 |
|
Dover
Messages: 2547 Registered: March 2006 Location: Monterey, California
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
CarrierII wrote on Mon, 08 June 2009 03:50 | You've got 12 BC when I've got 6 carriers at ~15ish minutes into the game? (Well, I can't play that fast, but my elder brother could demonstrate the principle)
|
In order to get 6 carriers out in 15 minutes, you will have to have teched straight to it and build absolutely no other forces. If that's your strategy, you won't get very far past your Stargate.
Note that faggoty $$$FASTEST$MONEY$MAPS$$$ don't count. That's not StarCraft, that's AIDS impersonating StarCraft.
DarkDemin wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 19:19 | Remember kids the internet is serious business.
|
|
|
|
|
Re: CarrierII's avatar [message #389673 is a reply to message #389672] |
Mon, 08 June 2009 05:53 |
|
Dover
Messages: 2547 Registered: March 2006 Location: Monterey, California
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
CarrierII wrote on Mon, 08 June 2009 05:11 | True, we can get it to function against the AI quite well, but human vs human games are a whole different ballgame.
|
The AI is silly. You can take on seven terran comps alone with Protoss because they let you pump out Dark Templar before they can build any detectors. It's a strange combination of sad and funny to watch 7 bases be destroyed by one unit each.
DarkDemin wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 19:19 | Remember kids the internet is serious business.
|
|
|
|
Re: CarrierII's avatar [message #392787 is a reply to message #389522] |
Sun, 28 June 2009 17:38 |
|
Dover
Messages: 2547 Registered: March 2006 Location: Monterey, California
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
Just to prove my point, here's what happens when a Protoss player tries to tech straight for carriers against a competent Terran player.
http://www.gomtv.net/classics3/vod/750
Note that this strategy is actually (Somewhat) viable here, because of the size of the map and because of the strategy employed by the players (Flash is known to turtle quite a bit. Fast carriers when executed correctly are something of an "anti-turtle" build). Even with how delayed the comsat was already, the carriers still get discovered before they're ready to act, giving Flash (The Terran player) ample time to counter.
If you're wondering why Reach (The Protoss player) went for this somewhat odd build, here's the replay/commentary from the game immediately preceeding, where Flash turtles very well stopping any shuttle/reaver action cold, and very effectively blocking any intel gathering with observers:
http://www.gomtv.net/classics3/vod/749
Needless to say, there was no game 3.
DarkDemin wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 19:19 | Remember kids the internet is serious business.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: CarrierII's avatar [message #392887 is a reply to message #392787] |
Mon, 29 June 2009 10:37 |
|
Toggle Spoiler
Dover wrote on Mon, 29 June 2009 01:38 | Just to prove my point, here's what happens when a Protoss player tries to tech straight for carriers against a competent Terran player.
http://www.gomtv.net/classics3/vod/750
Note that this strategy is actually (Somewhat) viable here, because of the size of the map and because of the strategy employed by the players (Flash is known to turtle quite a bit. Fast carriers when executed correctly are something of an "anti-turtle" build). Even with how delayed the comsat was already, the carriers still get discovered before they're ready to act, giving Flash (The Terran player) ample time to counter.
If you're wondering why Reach (The Protoss player) went for this somewhat odd build, here's the replay/commentary from the game immediately preceeding, where Flash turtles very well stopping any shuttle/reaver action cold, and very effectively blocking any intel gathering with observers:
http://www.gomtv.net/classics3/vod/749
Needless to say, there was no game 3.
|
I dislike professional Starcraft because unless both players can unit spam (IE click) equally fast, strategy is all but irrelevant.
As for the avatar, I never received any word of Lil KiLLa saying he didn't mind me using it.
Renguard is a wonderful initiative
Toggle Spoiler
BBC news, quoting... |
Supporters of Proposition 8 will argue California does not discriminate against gays, as the current law allows them to get married - as long as they wed a partner of the opposite sex.
|
halokid wrote on Mon, 11 October 2010 08:46 |
R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 11 October 2010 15:35 |
|
the hell is that?
|
[Updated on: Mon, 29 June 2009 10:39] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Thu Nov 07 05:12:40 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01635 seconds
|