About server side and client side

@Chips:

Modding information is censored? “Thou shalt not knowest certain modding information unless ye proveth unto the self righteous that thou art truly a mod maker”

Everyone’s a potential mod maker ffs, what is this?

+1

How do people prove themselves to not be a cheater? It’s silly to have to be accepted in, in order to find out what does what. Make it private or not, there will still be people that try to cheat. That’s why we make cheat detection, is it not?

meh

The statement being debated was actually regarding BINI encoding and decoding.

@Chips:

….
Modding information is censored?
…

Got it m8.

And btw what can anyone do with the requested information,
how 2 separate client and server?

The only sense full thing can be 2 protect a mod against cheating
or people, who try 2 run a server on their own with it.

Or bypassing that. Small example:
http://www.lancersreactor.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=276
http://www.lancersreactor.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=385

Maybe we should promote “free speech”
for all cheaters and those who don’t respect, if someone
doesn’t wants his (l8test) mod 2 run on other servers.
And maybe the source of FLHook anticheat plugin, CheatersDeath and FLAC should be published 2.

@ topic: Jong just look at the list i’ve posted in the server side ini threat and look at the red marked ini’s those are not needed clientside.
There’s more possible like encounters etc. these are serverside and the client has no use for them

Greetings
Mind

I don’t believe the information required is sensitive in any way. You want to know which files can be removed from the client’s machine; does that let you do anything client-side to cheat? Not at all… If you’re ever so slightly competent in modding, you’d notice right away the missing files in the mod. And I doubt you can reproduce the modded files which you don’t have… Unless you have a LOT of free time on your hands.

Seriously, this is all very simple and rather harmless information that anyone should be able to get IMHO. It usually isn’t for cheating anyway, the largest use is to stop people from playing on their own LAN or in SP. Revealing which files were removed (something I could find out by other means in a matter of minutes, may I remind you) won’t do anything for this.

So please, stop the paranoia a bit…

i don’t want 2 heat up this discussion but i think we shouldn’t forget,
that the idea behind is to ‘protect’ the mod by seperating client + server stuff.

In fact you can leave some files away or fake them,
no one will be able 2 run a server with your mod without some significant work.

But a little cheat protection and disabling Datastorm + Co.
is ‘one package’ imho and done partly client side
(which doesn’t meet the topic title perfect),
so i think it’s not the worst idea 2 be a bit careful with additional infos.

And my personal paranoia strikes,
if someone tries 2 call that ‘censorship/’,
if such an information isn’t spread around.

Oh and btw - why is there a closed admin section?
Censorship? Paranoia?
Or maybe good reasons?

PS. ‘Freedom of Speech’ doesn’t mean people have 2 tell everything.

the problem with private sections is always that so-called “cheaters” will always eventually have access too and discover the uhh secrets

at the same time, there are excellent cheat tutorials public (how to make loot asteroid fields for example, shiparch.ini modding, basically any modding info can be used for cheating), yet nobody has a problem with that… now if thats not pathetic

I have no issues with making these things public, as its allready said, its the basics of proper modding server/client side.
And yes, if you search long enough you can allready find out whats editable and what is not.
Right now loads of anti cheat tools are availeble to prevent users from editing their files without being punished on a server so its not a biggy.
The only thing i would wait a bit with is the cloak stuff. Lots of servers allready have enough protection to prevent users of using a cloak, but some servers have poor protection so to prevent lame people from abusing this I would not make it public. And if people like to use cloak on their mods/servers they can download the FLhook cloak or the FLAC cloak prossibilities.

You know, the cloak related ini modding to make it partially work is really nothing fancy.

What should be always forbidden would be so called cheat tutorials, but I think we all still have common sense.

If somebody writes a shiparch ini modding tutorial, he does not write a cheat tutorial.
But if he writes a tutorial about how to obtain a cloaking device on a server and then use it illegally, its a cheat tutorial.

The anti-Cloak rule back on TLR was especially made for morons on both sides: The ones who want to write/read a cheat tutorial and the ones that switch off their brain as soon as they hear “cloak device”.

So where to draw the line? If the partial cloak ini modding is forbidden here, every modding knowledge should be forbidden consequently. Oh, and the SDK and BINI downloads should be considered cheats.

if you fear that this knowledge gets in the wrong hands then move this discussion to a area where only modders (which code real mods) have access to it and where those which mod for “personal use” dont have access

discussing about cheats or the possibility to cheat by altering the inis or other stuff never has lead somewhere in this community… but the knowledge about the initial question of the first post should not remain hidden for those “serious” modders which really need the info

(a compromise which might prevent neverending discussions which lead to no results)

F!R - read the posts above mine first, see what I am talking about? It’s the “private area”, “protect against cheats” - but this is just such a simplistic request? Why? Why on earth should such information be censored from anyone being available to have it who may have interest in it? Why can’t it be freely available to the public?

A lot of folks who mod relied upon the kindness and sharing of others to freely impart knowledge without judging people or asking them to provide proof of their intent first. The simple idealogical idea of that was perfect. Now showing signs of “wait, potential for a cheat, this can only be divulged in a separate area for those we’ve vetted as being a non threat”… isn’t.

The thread that’s currently “server side inis” should be “what ini files a server must have”, as it’d remove the confusion about what files a server must have, and what files are 100% controllable from the server, not the client (in my opinion) - which makes much more sense and should be “what files are controlled server side”.

Back to the start of my post, if the “discuss in private” continues, it’ll get more extreme until basically “You want to learn to mod? Well, can’t tell you about shiparch, constants, weapons_equip, st_equip, goods, systems, asteroids… etc etc because it’s a cheat risk. We’ll have to vet you, prove you’re not a threat”.

Now get why I called it censorship? it’s hiding away information that should be freely available on the pretence that until they can prove otherwise, anyone seeking it out is a cheater. Personally I think that’s very very wrong. I’m not sure, but it seems you think this is the right attitude to have though? Up to each individual, but I would ask if this is what is going on, to re-evaluate exactly what the purpose of the section and information hiding is (based on the assumption that such a part of the site exists). Are you trying to protect the game, or kill it?

I don’t know any modder who was born knowing exactly what to do without seeking some guidance in the first instance! This is threatened by the ideas of hiding information to only those proven trustworthy.

Boy I write long posts

Maybe we should promote “free speech”
for all cheaters and those who don’t respect, if someone
doesn’t wants his (l8test) mod 2 run on other servers.
And maybe the source of FLHook anticheat plugin, CheatersDeath and FLAC should be published 2.

tbh not a clue what you’re dribbling on about here… so i’ll just hand you a hanky and let you whip your own chin

@w0dk4:

You know, the cloak related ini modding to make it partially work is really nothing fancy.

Yeh, im not against the INI editing on how to make the cloaking work without FLhook or FLAC, cos its usefull for certain admins / mod makers etc.
I am woried, as you allready stated, that some one posts a mod with a readme on how to optain the cloaking device without lots of ini editing on the server.

But cloaking is off-topic here, we’re solely speaking about what files are server-side and what files are client-side.

All this means is you disclose what files may be left out of the client version… As I said earlier, you can already find that out by just looking at ANY mod! Just make a side-by-side comparison between the mod and your vanilla FL folder and you’ll be able to pick all the files missing.

Now, does that change a thing? No. Can you somehow guess the contents of the file just because you now know its name? Heck no. So what gives? Where’s all the crazy coming from? All that’s being discussed here is to say that empathy.ini can be absent from the client mod but that universe.ini cannot. Big worry…

Don’t worry Jong, you were asking a simple question with genuine intentions.

If you want to follow this path, I’d suggest downloading a couple of mods and check, since it’s probable that not all mods have removed all the files.

@Chips:

… read the posts above mine first, see what I am talking about? …

Did you?

@Chips:

… tbh not a clue what you’re dribbling on about here…

Obviously

• but that doesn’t keep you away from crying ‘CENSORSHIP’ - a bit out of place imho so you might remember,
  that i did try 2 answer some questions without judging etc. blabla…… - and from one more LONG reply ;D
  far out of sight of the point of the statement it claims 2 refer 2.
  Summarized "I don’t understand or care what you r talking about - but this is censorship.'.

Even so the topic might have gone a bit off topic after the initial question,
there can be only one sens in separating client + server files:
to protect a mod and keep others away from running a server without asking the modder.

Besides that separating the client and server is one step of the package,
which besides this protection can give a little anti-cheat protection and the chance 2 disable Datastorm + Co.
That’s all done the same way and nothing, what can be in any way relevant for usual modding
(cause in fact it’s about adding bugs).

So again 4 you Chips:
THIS can only be relevant for people trying 2 protect a server or a mod

• or for people trying 2 bypass the protection.

And so it will be impossible, 2 reconstruct missing files,
that’s only one 1st and the simple part, which doesn’t need 2 be private.
BUT so topics have the tendency 2 evolve - and even go off topic -
the obvious intention behind the question indicates “this should be private”
as others stated in posts above Chips and my initial post.
@Chips:

so i’ll just hand you a hanky and let you whip your own chin

Wait, so you’re saying the original topic is fine, but you are worried about what the replies might hold?

You know we have moderation, eh? We can remove posts that cross the limit.

But since I have a hard time understanding what’s so private about the list of client/server-side files, I’m not sure I get what you’re saying.

There is a way to ensure that FL datastorm and FL Explorer will crash or not show systems when trying to read your mod … ;D

That at least prevents less determined cheaters from checking out your mod system files. If you compress the files it helps a little too.

Ultimately if someone is determined enough, there is not much you can do.

Hmm, i would have like to have known this for the mod i’m working on. So then does this mean that the modders that don’t
know this have to guess and hope they don,t miss anything?. Maybe someone could send the info in a pm? would that not make it more secure? Thats assuming i,m not being suspected as a cheater for asking that is.
But it would be nice to be able to secure all he hard work i have been pouring into this thing.