Posts: 242
Threads: 14
Joined: Jul 2010
(12 Nov 10, 03:05PM)Mr.Floppy Wrote: Haha... Some never get tired...
Well, maybe we really should downgrade AC and while we are at it, why not downgrade our VirusScanners, Operating Systems and any other software as well?
Sorry, but you guys kind'a asked for it.
That's a really bad analogy tbh, doesn't make an argument.
Posts: 684
Threads: 36
Joined: Jun 2010
It was not mine the idea to put the nade pickup to one nade... point your weapon to other side.
Posts: 242
Threads: 14
Joined: Jul 2010
(12 Nov 10, 03:07PM)Brahma Wrote: It was not mine the idea to put the nade pickup to one nade... point your weapon to other side. Makes me curious... then who decided on showing 3 octets instead of 2 after flowtron accepted that it should be 2?
Posts: 684
Threads: 36
Joined: Jun 2010
I argued to flowtron we should institute a pattern: we should send the same number of octets to whois and cubelister.
wahnfred convinced flowtron that 3 octets was not a security issue... again, point your weapon to other side.
Posts: 242
Threads: 14
Joined: Jul 2010
12 Nov 10, 03:16PM
(This post was last modified: 12 Nov 10, 03:18PM by Drakas.)
(12 Nov 10, 03:11PM)Brahma Wrote: I argued to flowtron we should institute a pattern: we should send the same number of octets to whois and cubelister.
wahnfred convinced flowtron that 3 octets was not a security issue... again, point your weapon to other side.
But I gave you a whole argument (when WahnFred was discussing it as well)...
and it's a perfectly valid argument...
20:44:12 <@Brahma> jamz: once you said it was not a big issue given 3 octets in the whois command
20:44:20 -!- Shield{TyD} [[email protected]] has quit [Ping timeout]
20:44:32 <@Brahma> what can you say about 3 octets/whois and internet security?
20:45:16 <@flowtron> yeah, we're thinking of changing either the whois or the ext.ping
20:45:18 <@Drakas> changing it from 2 to 3 makes it much easier to find and identify the real user... only 255 addresses to look for, compared to 16k...
20:45:27 <@flowtron> anyway - they should be the same length.
20:45:37 <@Drakas> make both 2 octets
20:45:39 <@flowtron> Drakas: yes, that's an obvious answer
20:45:47 <@Brahma> Drakas: i know your opinion
20:45:53 <@Drakas> it's fact, not opinion
20:46:00 <@flowtron> but - even if you ping the 255 addresses - you'll still not know which of those ISP-customers is your target, will you?!?
20:46:02 <@Brahma> which is pretty paranoic, you know
20:46:11 <@Brahma> but it is acceptable
20:46:18 <@Brahma> jamz!
20:46:23 <@Drakas> uhm
20:46:25 <@jamz> Honestly Brahma, I couldn't care less. I'll work with what's available
20:46:26 <@Brahma> you work with these things
20:46:32 <@jamz> It won't affect the game
20:46:37 <@Brahma> no
20:46:43 <@Brahma> we are asking your opinion
20:46:52 <@Drakas> no, assuming the udp port is constant throughout a gaming session, it makes it much easier to find the who user is
20:47:05 <@Drakas> the outside udp port of the client that is being used for receiving :P
20:47:07 <@Drakas> and sending
20:47:18 <@jamz> Broadcast the whole IP, but in a random order
20:47:24 <@Drakas> (I'm not sure entirely, but it's possible there's a problem)
20:47:41 -!- BCFHaerkefiende [[email protected]] has quit [Ping timeout]
20:47:44 <@Brahma> the point is: ext ping gives 3 octets... and we do not want to change it, except if it is a big security hole
20:48:08 -!- DES|Bukz [[email protected]] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
20:48:14 <@Brahma> do you think it is jamz? and why do you think what you think?
20:48:16 -!- DES|Bukz [[email protected]] has joined #assaultcube
20:48:16 -!- mode/#assaultcube [+o DES|Bukz] by Q
20:48:16 <@Brahma> please
20:48:18 -!- BCFHaerkefiende [[email protected]] has joined #assaultcube
20:49:03 <@jamz> Do I think it is what? A big security hole?
20:49:06 <@jamz> No
20:49:23 <@Drakas> why make it to 3? :)
20:49:33 <@Brahma> pattern Drakas
20:49:33 <@Drakas> there's more of a privacy than security concern here
20:49:35 <@flowtron> because ext.ping is 3 ATM
20:49:41 <@flowtron> and we want to have them both the same
20:49:43 <@Brahma> ext ping info already gives 3
20:49:47 <@flowtron> so it's change either the one or the other
20:49:51 <@Drakas> yes, and that should be reduced to 2
20:49:56 <@flowtron> both have arguments in their favour and against them
20:50:06 <@Brahma> jamz: what is your job?... btw
20:50:13 <@jamz> What does the law say about revealing 3 octets?
20:50:17 <@jamz> Network Manager
20:50:24 <@Brahma> ok
20:50:32 <@Drakas> what law?
20:50:38 <@jamz> any law
20:50:40 <@jamz> anywhere
20:50:49 <@Drakas> ac isn't restricted by any law
20:50:56 <@Drakas> only ac server operators
20:51:03 <@Drakas> depending where the servers are located
20:51:03 <@jamz> No, but it makes sense to adhere to it, not go beyond it
20:51:29 <@Drakas> it makes sense to have ethic obligation to protect users' privacy
20:51:54 < pwnage-> It will still be privacy
20:52:03 <@jamz> Well, I refer you to my answer of 6 minutes ago
20:52:13 < pwnage-> :)
20:52:35 <@Drakas> you people are so foolish tbh
20:52:44 < pwnage-> thx for the compliment
20:52:46 <@Drakas> what happens when an AC server sends all info request pings ?
20:52:51 <@Drakas> it sends out YOUR IP address
20:53:03 <@Drakas> you can _easily_ link any used to any exact IP address if you give more than 2 octets
20:53:38 <@Drakas> so a person who wants to invade your privacy (ie. get your IP address) only has to run a server, find your first 3 octets (or even 2, although that makes things much harder), and then match it all up
20:53:54 <@Drakas> so getting full 4 octets is not that much a challenge, is it?
20:54:01 <@Drakas> if you make it 3, might as well make it 4
20:54:38 <@Drakas> now, you can't automatically decide whether any of the servers are being run for malicious purposes, so the 3-octet is relatively unsafe
20:55:06 <@Drakas> thx listening to my argument pwnage-
20:55:09 <@flowtron> Drakas: you have a valid argument, but a terrible way of presenting it
20:55:15 <@Drakas> not really...
20:55:26 <@Drakas> what way do you think would be better?
20:56:16 <@jamz> Drakas, does anyone other than you share you concern?
20:56:24 <@jamz> your concern*
20:56:33 <@Drakas> that's pretty much irrelevant
20:56:52 <@Drakas> how accepted an argument is does not influence its validity
20:57:23 <@flowtron> but presentation can make it easier to agree with you or easier to start a flamewar
20:57:32 <@jamz> It might be better to get someone less, er... psasionate, to put your point
20:57:38 <@Drakas> well, I'm not talking to 14-year-olds, am I?
20:57:55 <@Drakas> read over, understand what I'm saying
20:58:03 <@flowtron> it's still annoying to be talked down to.
20:58:08 <@flowtron> I understand perfectly
20:58:14 <@flowtron> and it was exactly my first response
20:58:16 <@Drakas> sorry then
20:58:25 <@flowtron> when Brahma asked about 3 octets for whois
20:58:32 <@Drakas> :F
20:58:37 <@flowtron> I actually wasn't aware the ext.ping was giving out more
20:58:38 <@Drakas> I have poor temper.. ->
20:58:45 <@flowtron> indeed. that was /my/ point
20:58:47 <@flowtron> ;(
20:58:52 <@flowtron> err. I meant ;)
20:59:53 <@flowtron> the ext.ping is something we just took from the other cubeengine games, so ..
21:00:14 <@flowtron> .. we started contemplating wether or not it was safe enough to go with 3 octets for whois too.
21:00:17 <@Drakas> well...if you're really interested in being able to get the full IP address without releaving it to malicious parties, just use a little bit of PGP
21:00:23 <@Drakas> revealing *
21:01:05 < SKB> malicious parties know how to get full ip
21:01:05 <@Drakas> so users can report full encrypted IPs, and only trusted parties can decrypt them
21:01:13 <@flowtron> uhm, isn't one use of whois to be able to post for BL-entry?
21:02:06 <@Drakas> well, an admin decrypts it, replaces it with the real IP if the entry seems sufficient
21:02:28 <@flowtron> Drakas: your speaking of the server logs here?
21:02:34 <@Drakas> this sort of thing might also let us distinguish from pointless entries
21:02:42 <@flowtron> how so?
21:03:00 <@Drakas> I'm not talking about them
21:03:29 <@Drakas> this is just an example of how you could make whois absolutely safe without releasing the sensitive info to everyone
21:03:36 <@Drakas> user does: /whois cn
21:03:51 <@Drakas> server sends: encrypt(pub_key, clients[cn]->ip)
21:04:03 <@Drakas> user gets that code, ab8231b23ubj1j23bj12jb31b (whatever..)
21:04:12 <@flowtron> yeah, I understand that bit.
21:04:14 <@Drakas> then they can post it
21:04:27 <@Drakas> but, ugh, this would be very easy to distinguish without a salt :o
21:04:43 < pwnage-> Users should post that code? ab8231b23ubj1j23bj12jb31b
21:05:02 <@Drakas> then a trusted party decodes that code, has the ip, posts it to the thread
21:05:08 <@Drakas> this is just an example case, anyway
21:05:14 <@flowtron> yeah, well, we have some "evil plans" about in-game auth .. maybe that'll help too.
21:05:16 <@Drakas> I'm still for 2-octet IPs, no more, no less
21:05:17 < Francois> when they /whois they get that code ?
21:05:36 <@flowtron> Drakas: Brahma and I have agreed on 2 octets already ;)
21:05:48 < Francois> csl already reveal 3 octets
21:06:01 <@flowtron> Francois: that was his suggestion, to further obfuscate the IP and protect the innocent but presumed guilty
21:06:07 <@flowtron> Francois: that's the issue here
21:06:13 <@flowtron> we're changing it to 3rd==0 now :-P
21:06:23 < SKB> aff
21:06:25 < Francois> :/
21:06:40 < Francois> was nice
21:07:13 < Francois> to spot some blacklisted guys on bad managed servers
21:07:13 <@flowtron> too nice for my taste and Drakas' too as it seems.
21:07:20 <@Brahma> but i would like the opinion of a network manager like jamz... :P but you know, i am paranoid too
21:07:42 <@Brahma> "finish with my woman cause she couldn't help me with my mind"
21:08:30 <@flowtron> 2 octets should still be enough for comparing to BL - and if we manage to pull in-game auth off I hope that will make gaming with "reliable people" an easier job for us all
21:08:45 < Francois> for some countries yes
21:08:54 < SKB> bah
21:08:59 < Francois> some FAI are too weird
21:08:59 < SKB> what about /report cn
21:09:05 <@jamz> The only advantage I can see for 2 octets is to distinguish between countries for geo lookups in some cases
21:09:07 < SKB> and a separate log serverside?
21:09:12 <@jamz> 3 octets* sorry
21:09:48 < IAF|Lucas> SKB you have to trust server hoster for that :p
21:10:07 < SKB> this would help administration though
21:10:08 < IAF|Lucas> isn't the encrypt solution weak ?
21:10:20 <@flowtron> any server hoster should be able to get all 4 w/o much difficulty whatever our code does
21:11:04 < pwnage-> yes. Because he is the server hoster
21:11:26 < BCFH|Ua51> hmm
21:11:35 < BCFH|Ua51> is brahma a good beer ?
21:11:43 < lipe> nah
21:11:48 < lipe> Skol is better
21:11:49 < lipe> :B
21:11:59 < BCFH|Ua51> what about budvar ? ..
21:12:01 < pwnage-> BCFH|Ua51, it is
21:12:01 < lipe> desculpa brahma, mas eh verdade :P:P::P:P
21:12:08 < BCFH|Ua51> =)
21:12:11 < BCFH|Ua51> good
21:12:18 < Francois> blue chimay
21:12:22 < pwnage-> http://brahma.com/
21:13:11 < BCFH|Ua51> ohh they sell it in ukraine in russia
21:13:13 < BCFH|Ua51> very good
21:15:09 <@Brahma> lipe: you understand of beer as much as you know about bears
21:15:51 < lipe> but i dont know nothing about bears
21:15:57 < lipe> ah
21:15:57 <@Brahma> BCFH|Ua51: Brahma is a medium quality beer around here... the same as Skol or Antactica (all from AmBev)
21:16:00 < lipe> shit..
21:16:03 < lipe> ._.
21:16:26 <@Brahma> but the taste of the beer here change too much with the region
21:16:45 < TheCrema> Brahma Extra is pretty decent
21:17:07 <@Brahma> as far Brazil is a big country, you will find people saying Brahma is pee, or Brahma is awesome
21:17:32 < lipe> brahma is good, but skol still ftw!
21:17:33 <@Brahma> Brahma Extra is one level about of those I cited... so, it is less affected by this region issue
21:17:43 <@Brahma> where do you live, lipe?
21:17:49 < lipe> Rio de janeiro
21:18:22 <@Brahma> you should say: Brahma is good, but Itaipava is better
21:18:24 <@Brahma> :P
21:18:29 < lipe> nah
21:18:30 < lipe> :P
21:18:38 <@Brahma> Itaipava is the same origin of Bohemia
21:18:42 < BCFH|Ua51> ahh ok =)
21:18:45 < TheCrema> Wanna drink a good beer, try Samuel Adams, Boston Lager or Light :P best american beer by far!!
21:18:54 <@Brahma> :D
21:19:06 < pwnage-> hi TheCrema
21:19:24 < TheCrema> pwage lad, sup?
21:20:02 <@Drakas> 21:10:08 < IAF|Lucas> isn't the encrypt solution weak ?
21:20:06 <@Drakas> not if we introduce salts
21:20:17 -!- Toca [[email protected]] has joined #assaultcube
21:20:21 -!- mode/#assaultcube [+o Toca] by Q
21:20:24 <@Brahma> hey TheCrema
21:20:26 <@Brahma> ops
21:20:30 <@Brahma> hey Toca
21:20:36 < BCFHaerkefiende> hoi Toca
21:20:37 < IAF|Lucas> hash ftw
21:20:37 < TheCrema> maluco
21:20:37 <@Brahma> deceiving TAB
21:20:38 <@Drakas> if the encrypted value isn't salted we obviously run into trouble :)
21:21:03 <@Toca> Hi Brahma BCFHaerkefiende :)
21:21:33 <@flowtron> Drakas: but then we need the post to include the server it came from, to know the salt
21:21:42 <@Drakas> no...
21:21:43 <@flowtron> Hi Toca
21:21:56 <@Toca> hey flowtron :)
21:22:03 <@Drakas> salts are random numbers only the encrypting and decrypting party will know
21:22:11 <@flowtron> I know about salts
21:22:17 <@flowtron> that's why I said
21:22:22 <@flowtron> if we don't know who encrypted it
21:22:26 <@flowtron> we won't know the salt
21:22:28 <@Drakas> we won't need to...
21:22:53 <@Drakas> ip is 122.8.10.5 -> then we simply encrypt rand(0,255).rand(0,255)......122.8.10.5.rand(0,255).rand(0,255)....
21:23:28 <@Drakas> and then when we decrypt, we know exactly what the ip is because we konw its position
21:23:34 <@Drakas> salts prevent the collision attack
21:23:46 < CIA-2> actiongame: baarreth * r5235 /trunk/ac/source/src/serverevents.h: sg gib, more restrictive (only gibs at max damage)
21:23:49 <@Brahma> ok people
21:23:56 <@Brahma> i need to test a real dm in 1.1 now
21:24:00 <@Drakas> I'm in
21:24:01 <@Brahma> only real men
21:24:12 <@Brahma> ok... you are a real man too Drakas
21:24:24 <@Brahma> connect to avenger.if.usp.br
21:24:26 <@Brahma> ftw
21:24:34 < TheCrema> okie dokey
21:25:05 < WahnFred> [22:45] <Drakas> make both 2 octets
21:25:22 <@Drakas> lemme compilleee Brahma
21:25:33 < WahnFred> Drakas: yeah, make it even harder to permban haxors ...
21:25:46 -!- Gibstick [[email protected]] has joined #assaultcube
21:25:46 <@Drakas> WahnFred: I *just* proposed a whole solution to that
21:25:59 <@Drakas> read the rest of the conversation
21:26:30 < WahnFred> 3 octects is safe and the best solution in my opinion
21:26:48 <@Drakas> and I gave a whole reasoning why 3 octets is unsafe, equivalent to 4 octets
21:27:25 -!- kick52 [[email protected]] has joined #assaultcube
21:28:45 <@Drakas> ok, almost compiled
21:30:23 < CIA-2> actiongame: flowtron * r5236 /trunk/ac/source/src/texture.cpp: whitespace fixes
21:30:36 -!- DES|Bukz [[email protected]] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
21:30:45 -!- DES|Bukz [[email protected]] has joined #assaultcube
21:30:47 -!- mode/#assaultcube [+o DES|Bukz] by Q
21:30:47 < CIA-2> actiongame: flowtron * r5237 /trunk/ac/bin_unix/ (linux_64_client linux_64_server): linux64 bins
21:31:17 < WahnFred> drakas, please give me a short summary - i don't have the time to read it all
21:31:17 <@flowtron> WahnFred: well, I've been torn here between all the available arguments
21:31:34 <@flowtron> drakas way of presenting his point isn't so nice to read IMHO
21:31:56 <@flowtron> basically he says if we give out 3 octets it's easy to poll the 254 IPs in their range
21:32:07 <@flowtron> to find out which client is listening on the AC port
21:32:28 <@flowtron> which I had as first objection against 3 octects too
21:32:48 <@flowtron> whois in AC only gives out 2 - I was actually unaware that CSL uses 3 since for ever.
21:33:13 <@flowtron> so we want them both the same, and need to decide with which variant to go.
21:33:38 < WahnFred> http://cubeengine.com/forum.php4?action=display_thread&thread_id=1
21:33:45 < WahnFred> by Aardappel on 01/05/2002 01:55 through 213.75.159.5
21:34:14 < WahnFred> full ip ...
21:34:53 <@flowtron> hm, showing me someone who's sticking their head into the barrel of a gun won't make me think better about guns
21:36:55 < WahnFred> problem: there are a lot of cheaters around in cube1/2 and the 3 octects help a lot to nearly identfiy them.
21:37:10 <@flowtron> yes, that's the big argument in favour of 3
21:37:28 <@flowtron> but, in a pinch, I prefer the more secure/private solution
21:39:29 <@flowtron> I mean, I guess the question is - would anybody that has the tools to attack a given IP be /that/ interested in the specific IP of one (or a bunch) of AC-players?
21:39:39 <@DES|Bukz> lol
21:39:44 <@DES|Bukz> i seriously doubt it
21:39:44 <@flowtron> given 2 octets or 3 wouldn't make much of diff to that kind of person
21:39:47 <@DES|Bukz> but I guess you never know
21:39:54 <@flowtron> they'd just attack the subnet and see what they get
21:40:18 < WahnFred> hmm, at first the ac community should concentrate on a master sending IP's only, not dyndns addresses :)
21:40:35 <@flowtron> which reminds me to finish that awesome CSR episode soon. totally mind-blowing. ROP - result oriented programming - I got to 0:46:00 of 2:48:00 so far.
21:40:50 -!- DES|Medusa [[email protected]] has joined #assaultcube
21:41:07 < WahnFred> heard about dns highjacking - a security issue! :p
21:41:13 <@flowtron> WahnFred: we just have a manually moderated M.S. ATM and hostnames are preferred
21:41:34 <@flowtron> s/CSR/CRE/
21:41:43 <@flowtron> CRE=ChaosRadioExpress
21:42:34 <@flowtron> WahnFred: I hear you, but one /can/ go overboard on the security concerns
21:42:35 <@Brahma> WahnFred: i agree that 3 octets will be hardly used as a security exploit, if a malicious attacker wants your ip, he will find it if the server sends 2 or 3 octets...
21:42:37 <@Brahma> but
21:42:44 <@flowtron> if any server starts violating the rules, we delete it.
21:42:58 <@Brahma> what is the purpose in getting 3 octets from the servers?
21:43:09 <@flowtron> makes rangebans more specific
21:43:22 <@flowtron> but that has ups & downs in itself
21:43:28 <@Brahma> it does not reply my question
21:43:57 <@Brahma> because people can ask the ips to the server owners
21:44:02 <@flowtron> and as someone pointed out earlier for GeoIP lookups IIRC 3 are needed for any amount of reliability
21:44:48 -!- MusicMan10 [[email protected]] has left #assaultcube []
21:44:53 <@flowtron> Brahma: you mean: post 2 octets and server and then the hoster looks up the matching IPs and hands them to RK for insertion into the BL !?!?
21:45:04 <@Brahma> yes
21:45:13 <@Brahma> but this is not my point
21:45:23 <@Brahma> why the C.L. users need the 3 octets?
21:45:33 <@Brahma> they use it for something?
21:45:40 <@flowtron> I guess for GeoIP lookups
21:45:46 < WahnFred> 2 octets say nothing about the player - it's useless at all - for geoip and at least banning a range
21:46:24 <@Brahma> if it is not really a security risk, as WahnFred and jamz pointed out, i think we should extend 3 octets to all
21:46:48 <@Brahma> but if it is really a security risk, we should reduce all to 2 octets
21:47:03 <@DES|Bukz> if someone who is experienced enough with that stuff wants to find a full IP they will get it
21:47:07 <@Brahma> imho, i do not think it is a security risk
21:47:11 <@DES|Bukz> I doubt AC is their first choice in methods of getting it
21:47:18 <@Brahma> but i am paranoid at the same time
21:47:41 <@Brahma> this is a important point Bukz
21:47:43 <@flowtron> Brahma: I just said - I don't think any1 with the capabilities to hurt a specific IP will need more than 2 octets to target anyway
21:47:52 <@Brahma> yes
21:48:35 <@Brahma> flowtron: if someone manages to hit other person attacking his ip (ping), i think he will find the victim ip by other meanings
21:48:37 <@flowtron> so, I guess the to-and-fro comes to an end: we'll make whois give 3 octets and ext.ping stays fully informative as before
21:48:41 <@Brahma> like asking the guy to enter in a server
21:48:52 <@flowtron> one he controls- exactly
21:48:54 <@Brahma> okey
Well, I was wrong about the 'accepting' part in my previous post. But sacrifising security/privacy for a display of flag... dunno
Posts: 684
Threads: 36
Joined: Jun 2010
12 Nov 10, 03:23PM
(This post was last modified: 12 Nov 10, 03:24PM by Brahma.)
So, what does it prove?
That flowtron had the final decision based on the arguments from wahnfred? (that 3 octets are not a security risk)
EDIT: there is no big issue to me to send only two octets to whois and cubelister....
Posts: 242
Threads: 14
Joined: Jul 2010
12 Nov 10, 03:25PM
(This post was last modified: 12 Nov 10, 03:26PM by Drakas.)
(12 Nov 10, 03:23PM)Brahma Wrote: So, what does it prove?
That flowtron had the final decision based on the arguments from wahnfred? (that 3 octets are not a security risk)
Nothing... I just wanted to know some detail. There's no need to be so paranoid...
(and I was clearly wrong somewhere here, yep)
Posts: 684
Threads: 36
Joined: Jun 2010
12 Nov 10, 03:30PM
(This post was last modified: 12 Nov 10, 03:37PM by Brahma.)
Drakas, you and tipper must understand: I have no power in the final decisions....
If I had, the game would be like this:
* We would be in the version 1.1.5.7, and more 10 new devs in the team
* We would have 50 official maps
* We would have more 2 new weapons (weaker ones to not mess the balance now)
* All weapons (with the exception of sniper, ar and nades) would have the same stats of the 1.0
* I would not touch in the armor (at least now)
EDIT: The sniper would be 80 of damage to avoid the fast sniper+pistol combo, the ar would keep 120ms of attackdelay and the nades would simply be 1 frag (the other stats would be equal to 1.0)
Posts: 855
Threads: 68
Joined: Jun 2010
13 Nov 10, 05:04AM
(This post was last modified: 13 Nov 10, 05:05AM by MorganKell.)
So we wouldn't happen to be getting grenade gibs returned to normal anytime soon then aye? 2 points and 2 nades per pack? No? Just make it a longer respawn time? Aye?
Posts: 57
Threads: 5
Joined: Jun 2010
maybe 1 nade 2 point? :)
drakas: thx for info didn't know was for wolf :) but i'm sure you get my point ;)
Posts: 3,780
Threads: 33
Joined: Jun 2010
Presentation is half the points. ;-)
3 nades, counting as 1 frag each is perfect. It's way too easy to splode someone with a nade for it to be on the same level as knifing them or getting a headshot. Being an avid nade user, though, I agree with the suggestions of increasing damage radius and/or damage. :)
Posts: 99
Threads: 17
Joined: Jul 2010
Everything in 3 words..( if " . " counts 4 )
1.1 SUCKS
Posts: 92
Threads: 8
Joined: Jun 2010
sorry but you all fail, 93 > 1.0 > 1.1
good times.
Posts: 534
Threads: 21
Joined: Jun 2010
I thought I would just try to sum up this thread here:
1. The majority of people complaining about 1.1 never did anything to contribute to the game, and probably barely contributed to the discussion about how AC should change.
2. Everyone complaining about the weak sniper wants to go back to the days where all people would use during clan matches was the sniper and the SMG (and mostly the sniper, the SMG was the weapon you used if you couldn't handle the sniper). So, basically, no reason to have new weapons, everyone should use the same one, right?
3. AC has been almost 100% hacker free for several months here. I remembered times in 1.04 where there would be 3 people using a knife gib hack at once on one server. Thanks, I don't want to go back to that.
4. AC is a free, opensource game that you paid $0 for. The devs, on the other hand, did have to pay to maintain the 1.04 masterserver. So how bout you give them some money if you want to see it keep running? No? It's a free game, you don't want to pay? Then too bad!
I'm not saying 1.1 is perfect. There are still audio glitches with the weapons, the shotgun is probably a little overpowered (although there is still hardly anyone using it during pubs) and the nades are probably a little weak. But if you have nothing useful to say, please don't bother posting here.
Posts: 208
Threads: 35
Joined: Jul 2010
aw damn missed the flame wars..
and 1.1.0.3 is pretty good i stoped playing for a bit, but i saw 1.1.0.3 was released so i downloaded it and its not bad at all, i see a ton of custom maps, wich is all i like playing on so thats good, and the sniper is better too, the shotgun and ar are still kindof annoying but its not that big of a deal.
Posts: 242
Threads: 14
Joined: Jul 2010
(13 Nov 10, 07:32PM)U|Zarj Wrote: I thought I would just try to sum up this thread here:
1. The majority of people complaining about 1.1 never did anything to contribute to the game, and probably barely contributed to the discussion about how AC should change.
2. Everyone complaining about the weak sniper wants to go back to the days where all people would use during clan matches was the sniper and the SMG (and mostly the sniper, the SMG was the weapon you used if you couldn't handle the sniper). So, basically, no reason to have new weapons, everyone should use the same one, right?
3. AC has been almost 100% hacker free for several months here. I remembered times in 1.04 where there would be 3 people using a knife gib hack at once on one server. Thanks, I don't want to go back to that.
4. AC is a free, opensource game that you paid $0 for. The devs, on the other hand, did have to pay to maintain the 1.04 masterserver. So how bout you give them some money if you want to see it keep running? No? It's a free game, you don't want to pay? Then too bad!
I'm not saying 1.1 is perfect. There are still audio glitches with the weapons, the shotgun is probably a little overpowered (although there is still hardly anyone using it during pubs) and the nades are probably a little weak. But if you have nothing useful to say, please don't bother posting here.
1. And the majority that are complaining about 1.0.... similar thing... ;)
2. It's all down to attitude. I've written many posts about it on this forum. Argument very invalid.
3. Wallhacking isn't cheating?
4. Good, now I'm running a server. Why are you complaining about me running it?
And at "useful to say", likewise, Zarj. Don't start picking a fight again (I said, I'll be cool unless you provoke things).
Posts: 534
Threads: 21
Joined: Jun 2010
(13 Nov 10, 08:21PM)Drakas Wrote: (13 Nov 10, 07:32PM)U|Zarj Wrote: I thought I would just try to sum up this thread here:
1. The majority of people complaining about 1.1 never did anything to contribute to the game, and probably barely contributed to the discussion about how AC should change.
2. Everyone complaining about the weak sniper wants to go back to the days where all people would use during clan matches was the sniper and the SMG (and mostly the sniper, the SMG was the weapon you used if you couldn't handle the sniper). So, basically, no reason to have new weapons, everyone should use the same one, right?
3. AC has been almost 100% hacker free for several months here. I remembered times in 1.04 where there would be 3 people using a knife gib hack at once on one server. Thanks, I don't want to go back to that.
4. AC is a free, opensource game that you paid $0 for. The devs, on the other hand, did have to pay to maintain the 1.04 masterserver. So how bout you give them some money if you want to see it keep running? No? It's a free game, you don't want to pay? Then too bad!
I'm not saying 1.1 is perfect. There are still audio glitches with the weapons, the shotgun is probably a little overpowered (although there is still hardly anyone using it during pubs) and the nades are probably a little weak. But if you have nothing useful to say, please don't bother posting here.
1. And the majority that are complaining about 1.0.... similar thing... ;)
2. It's all down to attitude. I've written many posts about it on this forum. Argument very invalid.
3. Wallhacking isn't cheating?
4. Good, now I'm running a server. Why are you complaining about me running it?
And at "useful to say", likewise, Zarj. Don't start picking a fight again (I said, I'll be cool unless you provoke things).
1. No one is complaining about 1.0... they're just frustrated by this mass of people who are complaining about 1.1.
2. Not so much about attitude, but that a game should actually have some real variety of weapons. Having only one competitive weapon is pretty lame.
3. Anyone wallhacking in 1.1 could do it in 1.04 just as easily. And I like the pubs without some moron killing everyone from 1000 yards away with a knife.
4. I applaud the fact that you have put a lot of effort and money into both HI-SKILL and all the servers you run. I'm just saying that the majority of players who want the 1.04 masterserver back wouldn't pay a cent to see that happen.
Posts: 242
Threads: 14
Joined: Jul 2010
13 Nov 10, 10:37PM
(This post was last modified: 13 Nov 10, 10:48PM by Drakas.)
(13 Nov 10, 09:40PM)U|Zarj Wrote: (13 Nov 10, 08:21PM)Drakas Wrote: (13 Nov 10, 07:32PM)U|Zarj Wrote: I thought I would just try to sum up this thread here:
1. The majority of people complaining about 1.1 never did anything to contribute to the game, and probably barely contributed to the discussion about how AC should change.
2. Everyone complaining about the weak sniper wants to go back to the days where all people would use during clan matches was the sniper and the SMG (and mostly the sniper, the SMG was the weapon you used if you couldn't handle the sniper). So, basically, no reason to have new weapons, everyone should use the same one, right?
3. AC has been almost 100% hacker free for several months here. I remembered times in 1.04 where there would be 3 people using a knife gib hack at once on one server. Thanks, I don't want to go back to that.
4. AC is a free, opensource game that you paid $0 for. The devs, on the other hand, did have to pay to maintain the 1.04 masterserver. So how bout you give them some money if you want to see it keep running? No? It's a free game, you don't want to pay? Then too bad!
I'm not saying 1.1 is perfect. There are still audio glitches with the weapons, the shotgun is probably a little overpowered (although there is still hardly anyone using it during pubs) and the nades are probably a little weak. But if you have nothing useful to say, please don't bother posting here.
1. And the majority that are complaining about 1.0.... similar thing... ;)
2. It's all down to attitude. I've written many posts about it on this forum. Argument very invalid.
3. Wallhacking isn't cheating?
4. Good, now I'm running a server. Why are you complaining about me running it?
And at "useful to say", likewise, Zarj. Don't start picking a fight again (I said, I'll be cool unless you provoke things).
1. No one is complaining about 1.0... they're just frustrated by this mass of people who are complaining about 1.1.
2. Not so much about attitude, but that a game should actually have some real variety of weapons. Having only one competitive weapon is pretty lame.
3. Anyone wallhacking in 1.1 could do it in 1.04 just as easily. And I like the pubs without some moron killing everyone from 1000 yards away with a knife.
4. I applaud the fact that you have put a lot of effort and money into both HI-SKILL and all the servers you run. I'm just saying that the majority of players who want the 1.04 masterserver back wouldn't pay a cent to see that happen. I can't take this any more. You make no sense, you don't read anything I write, you don't take anything I've written{*} into account, it's impossible to argue with someone like you. (*)
1. You're intellectually weak.
2. You're intellectually weak.
3. You're intellectually weak.
4. No you don't [clearly].
{*} As Mael said, you're beating a dead horse. Arguments were already told and discussed.
(*) {*} that's why I am happy with being in an AC forum that doesn't have you as a moderator.
( Drakas Wrote:Don't start picking a fight again (I said, I'll be cool unless you provoke things). )
Posts: 534
Threads: 21
Joined: Jun 2010
Resorting to personal attacks against someone, without any evidence to back up what you are saying, is a pretty poor form of debating...
And this was never meant to just be directed at YOU, more so at all those people complaining about 1.1 and doing nothing to change the situation.
Posts: 890
Threads: 16
Joined: Jun 2010
Let's take this elsewhere. You've both been around long enough to know these back-and-forth discussions devolve further and further. You're partially off topic anyways.
My last word on the subject: 1.0 is fun and I'll support efforts to preserve its gameplay via an alternate masterserver/s. But I won't support the argument for 1.0 to be officially brought back. I think that's the most reasonable stance.
Posts: 855
Threads: 68
Joined: Jun 2010
14 Nov 10, 03:48AM
(This post was last modified: 14 Nov 10, 03:52AM by MorganKell.)
(13 Nov 10, 11:43PM)U|Zarj Wrote: Resorting to personal attacks against someone, without any evidence to back up what you are saying, is a pretty poor form of debating...
I beg to differ sir. Personal attacks separate the men from the boys. You have to put your hide on the line and take it like a man. Sounds outdated like it's from the 90's aye? Well sorry to burst your bubble but real eras never die. Now be a good little chap, stop making the same arguments over and over, and go read a book. I bet you could knock out War and Peace in the time it would take you to throwdown real skills. :).
Nades 2 points per gib and 1 per pickup. <--- Since everyone is soooo intent on adding another "weapon" to the game, why don't we first look at one that's already there... GRENADES. Thank you come again. My name is Mr. Johnny Chin.
Might ease the transition for some.
By the way honeybuns,
" And this was never meant to just be directed at YOU, more so at all those people complaining about 1.1 and doing nothing to change the situation."
For many people the only thing they can do is make a complaint on the forums. Not everyone knows how to do all that wickedy wack computer stuff you do, and that's only fair. This is a game first and foremost, not the "I coded three thousand lines of uber metric graphamology in order to show you why I think the SMG lacks kick" sweepstakes.
-----
Mindless crap against a dev (+2 points)
for post: RE: About the "player" : ''Myuk~s|D
http://forum.cubers.net/post-21673.html
As for this ^^... thankfully it is far from mindless and you are just a mod.
Posts: 92
Threads: 8
Joined: Jun 2010
could someone add 93 to the poll
Posts: 218
Threads: 1
Joined: Jun 2010
(14 Nov 10, 11:37AM)PolarHedgehog Wrote: could someone add 93 to the poll
amen
Posts: 3,462
Threads: 72
Joined: Jun 2010
I really think that Drakas and Zarj should get off of this board and duke it out on the street while we have a nice, flame-free, time without this. This is a thread I would like to get closed.
Posts: 3,780
Threads: 33
Joined: Jun 2010
Not much left to say, I suppose.
|
