Easy to Make Security System

[Coke]

HOW, the FUCK, could the NPC AI be client side?

THINK

It isn't a case of 'their client would process it differently'. It-just-would-not-work.

[Tony]

Lol rollin.

[Matt]

HOW, the FUCK, could the NPC AI be client side?

THINK

It isn't a case of 'their client would process it differently'. It-just-would-not-work.

Yes, it would work. But it wouldn't work properly, as it wouldn't be the same for everyone.

Nothing is impossible, remember that and quit being stupid.

[Coke]

No it fucking wouldn't, you quit being stupid.

How is:

1. Any player going to see any other players NPC's.

2. The server going to handle NPC deaths, spawns... in fact, fuck it I'm not even going into this. Seriously, without turning it into a p2p nightmare this just would-not-fucking-work.

Its impossible. Its not a case of it wouldn't be the same for anyone, so many methods just wouldn't... Grr.

think ._.

NPC AI goes client side. Ok, how is the server going to know who killed what NPC and who is getting what exp, how many NPC's are on the current map, which items are dropped, who's being hit by what.

K, that causes problems, so we have to then detach NPC's from the server entirely and make them a purely client-side affair. K, assuming we were fucking stupid enough to even humor this, we then have the problem that the server can't actually verify anything we tell it, be it which npc's we killed, how much exp we got, how many NPC's are on the map, what items they drop... it goes on and on.

Suddenly our game becomes a useless waste of space, and we think which fucking spastic decided this would work.

Oh it was Matt. I'm never listening to a black person in my life ever again.

Also, lots of things are impossible. Take object orientation's useless implementation in vb6.

Create one instance of an object... oh shit, it worked :O!

Create two instances of an object in vb6... Oh, you can't. Yay, that has a lot of point to it.

=P

[Pbcrazy]

i see what your saying, and no, it would WORK, however as matt said, it would be very fucked up. people would see the npc's being in different places and such.

and nvm mind what i said, idk what i was thinking.

Ignore the inexperienced programmer!!

[Matt]

No it fucking wouldn't, you quit being stupid.

How is:

1. Any player going to see any other players NPC's.

2. The server going to handle NPC deaths, spawns... in fact, fuck it I'm not even going into this. Seriously, without turning it into a p2p nightmare this just would-not-fucking-work.

Its impossible. Its not a case of it wouldn't be the same for anyone, so many methods just wouldn't... Grr.

think ._.

NPC AI goes client side. Ok, how is the server going to know who killed what NPC and who is getting what exp, how many NPC's are on the current map, which items are dropped, who's being hit by what.

K, that causes problems, so we have to then detach NPC's from the server entirely and make them a purely client-side affair. K, assuming we were fucking stupid enough to even humor this, we then have the problem that the server can't actually verify anything we tell it, be it which npc's we killed, how much exp we got, how many NPC's are on the map, what items they drop... it goes on and on.

Suddenly our game becomes a useless waste of space, and we think which fucking spastic decided this would work.

Oh it was Matt. I'm never listening to a black person in my life ever again.

Also, lots of things are impossible. Take object orientation's useless implementation in vb6.

Create one instance of an object... oh shit, it worked :O!

Create two instances of an object in vb6... Oh, you can't. Yay, that has a lot of point to it.

=P

1) That's wtf I was talking about with it being all fucked up. Pay attention.
2) You could do it, if you know what you're doing. Of course, you would still have to perform checks with the server (That's where the security comes in, jackass). However, you can still handle most of the actual processing on the client, which would save a lot of effort and what not for the server.

It wouldn't be too hard to get it working. Not saying it's a good idea, but you're obviously too stupid to realize I never said it was. Way to go Fox. Way to insult me, calling me black (Which is getting really old, btw. It was funny the first few times, a year or two ago when it was started, give it up) and what not, in a lame, loser-ish attempt to hide your failure.

Bravo.

[Coke]

No Matt, its bullshit. It won't work without p2p interaction which is completely detracting from the point.

And no amount of security will protect any system the instant you move a core algorithm to a client. It just won't.

You are talking out of your arse and my guess is just arguing for the sake of it, honestly man give yourself a shake.

[Matt]

No Matt, its bullshit. It won't work without p2p interaction which is completely detracting from the point.

And no amount of security will protect any system the instant you move a core algorithm to a client. It just won't.

You are talking out of your arse and my guess is just arguing for the sake of it, honestly man give yourself a shake.

When I have the time and don't have two projects going at once, I will do this to MS and show you it can be done. It's not practical, because there's a lot that you can change and it is possible to secure it, for the most part. Not perfectly, but it can be done.

But, when I get the time, I'll show it. I'll even release the source that I do this in.

How's that?

Now let this bullshit go.

[Coke]

No.

Code it so I can't hack it sideways.

[GIAKEN]

Pointless argue some more guys...

Who cares if the NPC AI is in the client?

[Pbcrazy]

apparently fox... :roll:

[Matt]

No.

Code it so I can't hack it sideways.

Why? I never claimed it wouldn't be hackable. See, you're taking this out of context, and in your head you think I said something that I didn't. You're basically arguing with yourself here.

I'm not gonna do something that I never said anything about. I was trying to explain it, but you're too nazi to believe anything anyone says. Why don't you go program in coffee and just ignore this?

[Labmonkey]

NPC Ai for firecaster is both clientside and serverside to reduce the packets sent. Is that bad?

[Pbcrazy]

depends, does it work well? and is easily (or at all) exploitable?

[Dragoons Master]

AI CAN be at the client, but it's just not a smart decision.
The client handles a few npcs, then send the data to the server, and the SERVER redistribute the information for every client. It CAN be done, but it's just the dumbest thing I've ever seen, because it is TOTALLY UNSAFE.

[Matt]

AI CAN be at the client, but it's just not a smart decision.
The client handles a few npcs, then send the data to the server, and the SERVER redistribute the information for every client. It CAN be done, but it's just the dumbest thing I've ever seen, because it is TOTALLY UNSAFE.

That's exactly what I was saying. Lol.

[Labmonkey]

Ah, yea I don't do things THAT dumb lol. I have them running parrallel, and then the server checks. But I am gana change it now that im tilebased.

[Coke]

AI CAN be at the client, but it's just not a smart decision.
The client handles a few npcs, then send the data to the server, and the SERVER redistribute the information for every client. It CAN be done, but it's just the dumbest thing I've ever seen, because it is TOTALLY UNSAFE.

That's exactly what I was saying. Lol.

Because multiple clients wouldn't cause any conflictions.

Honestly, people of MS, when did we turn into a bunch of fucking idiots?

[Matt]

AI CAN be at the client, but it's just not a smart decision.
The client handles a few npcs, then send the data to the server, and the SERVER redistribute the information for every client. It CAN be done, but it's just the dumbest thing I've ever seen, because it is TOTALLY UNSAFE.

That's exactly what I was saying. Lol.

Because multiple clients wouldn't cause any conflictions.

Honestly, people of MS, when did we turn into a bunch of fucking idiots?

When did YOU? I've been saying that they would cause problems. Everything would be all out of sync and shit. Focus Fox. Maybe you should read this thread again.

[Coke]

Or maybe I should just give up caring.

Fuck you, and fuck everyone in this pedantic as hell bullshit argument. No viable system would even contemplate for half a second such a rediculous idea, and the fact you all argue for the sake of arguing against all better judgement just to prove some pathetic point that you are of course right and I am stupid to counter argue is testamant to what a wasteland of aggressive none-constructive assholes these forums are now so warmly embracing.

I cba with this bullshit.

GLHF

[GIAKEN]

NO U

So we've all come to a conclusion, after 2 pages of debate, that the AI can possibly, not logically, be in the client, but nobody is ever going to do that.

Good game guys. I'm glad we're not solving things like world hunger or something.

[Matt]

NO U

So we've all come to a conclusion, after 2 pages of debate, that the AI can possibly, not logically, be in the client, but nobody is ever going to do that.

Good game guys. I'm glad we're not solving things like world hunger or something.

Pretty much. Even though it was lost on Fox. He's not grasping the entire point of the debate/argument at all. We're just saying it can be done, not saying it's smart to do so. Lol.

[Pbcrazy]

who cares about world hunger? :?

and, yes, we also proved im an idiot...

shit happens...

[GIAKEN]

I'm just saying instead of solving bigger problems we're messing with shit that doesn't matter...

[Matt]

I'm just saying instead of solving bigger problems we're messing with shit that doesn't matter...

What problems are there to solve?