1. Post #41

    October 2013
    64 Posts
    Yeah it is. Fog of war has to be specifically rendered on the client - therefore the client has complete control over it.
    That'd be a pretty big school-boy error from Valve. It makes more sense that the client reports its coordinates and the server relays back what information should be accessible from those coordinates. Perhaps I'm overlooking something obvious which would make that impractical but I'd be amazed the server just dumps back everything and trusts the client to filter out what shouldn't be accessible.

  2. Post #42
    KillaMaaki's Avatar
    August 2013
    999 Posts
    That'd be a pretty big school-boy error from Valve. It makes more sense that the client reports its coordinates and the server relays back what information should be accessible from those coordinates. Perhaps I'm overlooking something obvious which would make that impractical but I'd be amazed the server just dumps back everything and trusts the client to filter out what shouldn't be accessible.
    After some quick research, it appears indeed the server doesn't update entities which should be hidden by FOW. That said, there appears to be an exploit whereby you can tell the server you are in spectator mode even if you're playing - and if you're in spectator mode the server sends all entity positions (since spectators don't have FOW) but I think this also disables the shop.

  3. Post #43
    Sockem's Avatar
    June 2013
    580 Posts
    This is an outrage. I pay for the game and therefore I should have the right to modify it.

    Blessed be saint stallman.
    And other people have purchased the game and have the right to not be victimized by malicious modifying.

  4. Post #44
    Gold Member
    TheCreeper's Avatar
    April 2012
    746 Posts
    And other people have purchased the game and have the right to not be victimized by malicious modifying.
    While it is not my job to offer solutions to the problem of allowing people to modify their client without harming the gameplay of others it is bad and potentially harmful to both the customer and the eco system in general if the software that is sold cannot be modified by the one who owns it. In other words instead of you controlling the software, the software controls you.

    I am quite sure that there are other systems which can be implemented to allow the player to fully edit their client without harming the gameplay of others. Software of which cannot be edited is simply bad and garry is making the situation worse by banning those who attempt to edit the software that they bought. This behaviour is harmful to the freedoms of the computer user.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Linux United Kingdom Show Events Dumb Dumb x 3 (list)

  5. Post #45
    KillaMaaki's Avatar
    August 2013
    999 Posts
    While it is not my job to offer solutions to the problem of allowing people to modify their client without harming the gameplay of others it is bad and potentially harmful to both the customer and the eco system in general if the software that is sold cannot be modified by the one who owns it. In other words instead of you controlling the software, the software controls you.

    I am quite sure that there are other systems which can be implemented to allow the player to fully edit their client without harming the gameplay of others. Software of which cannot be edited is simply bad and garry is making the situation worse by banning those who attempt to edit their client. This behaviour is harmful to the freedoms of the computer user.
    ... I just... wow, really?
    So Garry says on the front page that if you hack, cheat, or exploit, you will be banned.
    And your response is a load of crap about "restricting your freedoms".
    Do you honestly expect anyone to agree with you?

  6. Post #46
    Gold Member
    TheCreeper's Avatar
    April 2012
    746 Posts
    ... I just... wow, really?
    So Garry says on the front page that if you hack, cheat, or exploit, you will be banned.
    And your response is a load of crap about "restricting your freedoms".
    Do you honestly expect anyone to agree with you?
    Actually I do expect people to agree with me because the entire GNU and FSF community is built on them ideas. Software that cannot be edited or modified is restricting the ability of the computer user to change the function or functions of the software they bought to do what they want it to do.

    It is simply unacceptable to ban those who wish to edit the software they clearly bought.

    Its like buying a packaged meal from the supermarket but while being allowed to consume it your not allowed to add to it by adding some pepper.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Linux United Kingdom Show Events Dumb Dumb x 4 (list)

  7. Post #47

    October 2013
    42 Posts
    Actually I do expect people to agree with me because the entire GNU and FSF community is built on them ideas. Software that cannot be edited or modified is restricting the ability of the computer user to change the function or functions of the software they bought to do what they want it to do.

    It is simply unacceptable to ban those who wish to edit the software they clearly bought.
    The difference is using your own server vs. someone elses. I'm all for modding, and I don't care if you mod and play on your own server or a friends.

    But when you modify the game and it affects players on an official server or some other persons server you don't know, they have every right to ban you for it.

    The problem here is that you don't really have any option to go anywhere else. If you figure out how to get your own server up and play outside of those official servers, then you obviously aren't going to ban yourself.

  8. Post #48
    KillaMaaki's Avatar
    August 2013
    999 Posts
    The difference is using your own server vs. someone elses. I'm all for modding, and I don't care if you mod and play on your own server or a friends.

    But when you modify the game and it affects players on an official server or some other persons server you don't know, they have every right to ban you for it.

    The problem here is that you don't really have any option to go anywhere else. If you figure out how to get your own server up and play outside of those official servers, then you obviously aren't going to ban yourself.
    I'm certain they're going to distribute servers for players.
    If they do, he can have at it. Noclip around the whole goddamn map on his own server for all I care.
    Just don't do it on a public server.

  9. Post #49

    October 2013
    32 Posts
    Actually I do expect people to agree with me because the entire GNU and FSF community is built on them ideas. Software that cannot be edited or modified is restricting the ability of the computer user to change the function or functions of the software they bought to do what they want it to do.

    It is simply unacceptable to ban those who wish to edit the software they clearly bought.

    Its like buying a packaged meal from the supermarket but while being allowed to consume it your not allowed to add to it by adding some pepper.
    You're missing something huge: you didn't purchase any software in Rust. You purchased the revokable privilege of having an account that can connect to their servers. Therefore you really don't own anything in Rust, therefore you have no rights.

  10. Post #50

    October 2013
    51 Posts
    You're missing something huge: you didn't purchase any software in Rust. You purchased the revokable privilege of having an account that can connect to their servers. Therefore you really don't own anything in Rust, therefore you have no rights.
    This. You purchased access, not software. Perhaps you should start reading the TOS when you purchase stuff. It clearly states all this in there. Especially the part about having completely revokable access.

  11. Post #51
    KillaMaaki's Avatar
    August 2013
    999 Posts
    Its like buying a packaged meal from the supermarket but while being allowed to consume it your not allowed to add to it by adding some pepper.
    Your analogy falls completely apart because there's hundreds of other people sharing the experience with you. You're being incredibly self-centered here. If your modifications only affected you and nobody else, nobody would care. Garry never said a single word about that. All he said is that if you hack or exploit, you get banned. Hacking and exploiting affects more than just you, you know.

  12. Post #52

    October 2013
    31 Posts
    Actually I do expect people to agree with me because the entire GNU and FSF community is built on them ideas. Software that cannot be edited or modified is restricting the ability of the computer user to change the function or functions of the software they bought to do what they want it to do.

    It is simply unacceptable to ban those who wish to edit the software they clearly bought.

    Its like buying a packaged meal from the supermarket but while being allowed to consume it your not allowed to add to it by adding some pepper.
    No, you bought a license to play the game. It's more like buying a ticket to see a movie and expecting to be able to rearrange the seats in the theater.

  13. Post #53
    Google first. ( Wiki )
    Robotboy655's Avatar
    May 2008
    9,229 Posts
    Yeah it is. Fog of war has to be specifically rendered on the client - therefore the client has complete control over it.
    Players that are not in sight/inside fog of war are not networked, means their position doesn't update.

  14. Post #54
    doLawN's Avatar
    September 2013
    255 Posts
    I'll believe it when I see it. Otherwise, it's just bullshit. People can still noclip even with the steam move. Officially not playing until this is getting taken care of.

  15. Post #55

    November 2013
    8 Posts
    I'll believe it when I see it. Otherwise, it's just bullshit. People can still noclip even with the steam move. Officially not playing until this is getting taken care of.
    There are some private servers that will ban hackers on site or with proof.

  16. Post #56

    October 2013
    57 Posts
    Actually I do expect people to agree with me because the entire GNU and FSF community is built on them ideas. Software that cannot be edited or modified is restricting the ability of the computer user to change the function or functions of the software they bought to do what they want it to do.

    It is simply unacceptable to ban those who wish to edit the software they clearly bought.

    Its like buying a packaged meal from the supermarket but while being allowed to consume it your not allowed to add to it by adding some pepper.
    packaged meals dont come with TOS now do they? no. so its nothing like that.