Status of "Cheat" Mods

[ffm2]

Of course wrong accusations are bad. I heard some that were too wild too. On the other hand this described cheats are cheats and methods we know of. I would not rule out that e.g. players reveal the map.

The oddity detector itself is also just a workaround. If we had something better, like mod signing, I'd drop it since it monitors the players.

14 hours ago, Seleucids said:

3. Seeing enemy stats

I made a trainer mod based on autociv for a26 once. It was nice for spectating and reviewing build orders but could be abused easy. That's why I dropped it. This can also lead quickly to information overload.

Best method for players atm. is just to play with trusted players which is also annoying. The only cheat we can rule out is reading the enemy chat if the host is trusted (as I understand it atm.).

[Seleucids]

41 minutes ago, ffm2 said:

The only cheat we can rule out is reading the enemy chat if the host is trusted (as I understand it atm.).

It can be ruled out for all cases because it's not the host that's relaying messages.

 

41 minutes ago, ffm2 said:

like mod signing,

I would like to test some features for mods or even future patches in practical conditions, i.e. a 4v4 game. If mod signing prevents me from testing and editing the patch on the fly then that would be annoying. I like the most recent versions of your Oddity detector. It flags out afk players and automation users in a non-offensive way

Edited Thursday at 12:10 by Seleucids

[Mentula]

28 minutes ago, Seleucids said:

• At no point did the license mention restrictions on the names of variables and quality of code

The topic here is not quality of code or variable names, but code obfuscation.

The point in the license is Section 1 "source code". GPL authors clarify that "[...] Obfuscated “source code” is not real source code and does not count as source code. [...]".

49 minutes ago, Seleucids said:

The source code is freely available as always. 

This is not sufficient to be compliant with GPL3, and not sufficient to qualify as FOSS. Obfuscated code violates Freedom #2 of Free Software as clearly explained here.

 

But besides the "legal" part... if you are a developer who cares about free software (as autociv does), then you will also understand that distributing source code made intentionally hard to be understood is contrary to the purpose and principles of Free Software itself.

[ffm2]

55 minutes ago, Seleucids said:

I would like to test some features for mods or even future patches in practical conditions, i.e. a 4v4 game. If mod signing prevents me from testing and editing the patch on the fly then that would be annoying.

Yeah, the other players may also just like to test out the market glitch now (or something else). And that is annoying to the other 7 players. One could still have games where all mods are allowed and games where one can play the game without having to worry the other players are "just testing something".

[Seleucids]

4 hours ago, ffm2 said:

players are "just testing something".

I don't test stuff when I'm playing. I test it when I am spec. I don't have enough apm to type code and play simultaneously

[TheCJ]

9 hours ago, Seleucids said:

I don't understand, what is in violation of the license?

I dont think its a "strict violation", but your goal is to obfuscate the code so its harder to determine what the mod is actually doing, which kinda goes against the concept of free (as in freedom) software? I think?

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

You'll notice a strong trend here on this forum and also out in the real world, indeed, across humanity:

When some people speak of "freedom" they very often mean their own freedom to screw over other people. 

The fight against this tendency is what builds and maintains civilization (and a healthy online community in 0 A.D.).

[TheCJ]

I mean, the concept of free software (as in, you can read the code and find out exactly what your pc is doing) has its place in certain situations, although I dont necessarily believe gaming is one of them; it makes more sense when actual real-world data is involved; i dont really care to know *how* the game calculates where my units go, i just need them to go.

But I dont think this quote

32 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

When some people speak of "freedom" they very often mean their own freedom to screw over other people.

(even though its certainly true) is very applicable in this situation? Just knowing what code is executed doesnt mean anybodys screwing anybody over?

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

10 minutes ago, TheCJ said:

(even though its certainly true) is very applicable in this situation? Just knowing what code is executed doesnt mean anybodys screwing anybody over?

My comment wasn't a direct reply to you. If anything, I agree with you here. My comment is in response to those who would rather obfuscate what their mods are doing while claiming "freedom" and twisting the meaning of open-source software as justification.

[Seleucids]

Hey hey hey

All I'm trying to do is to make it harder to hack autociv. 

@wowgetoffyourcellphone if you have a better idea to defend the code than covering up the code, please suggest. As of now I am just brainstorming ideas and obfuscation is the first idea that came to my mind. 

Edited 1 hour ago by Seleucids