Should lucas merge his client to the next version?

[Luc@s]

About the wallhack demo thing, wouldnt that give people easier access to using one in multiplayer?

The two current conflicting positions about this feature are :

1) Stef position: it is risky to make the wallhack open source. Also it might introduce wrongful suspicions
2) My position: theres already a huge amount of cheats available for AC, so making a wallhack code public is not much of an issue
Also, if you want to be coherent with this argument, then think about it : AC has an opensource builtin [some cheat]...
Moreover, i'd rather let people use this feature directly than having them downloading cheats to use it. (like many did)
Finally, this feature is not just about spotting cheats. I would really like to extend it to spectators (of course not subs in match). This or at least a medium size minimap on the top right replacing the radar (the mod i made some time ago and million made on his own recently which reminded me about it)
Because spectating a 1st person shooter with no indication on other players position is confusing.
And remember that wrong cheat claims always existed.

[Undead]

theres already a huge amount of cheats available for AC, so making a wallhack code public is not much of an issue

it would still encourage more people to use cheats. very few of the cheats, if any, are open source (afaik). it would cut out the risk of getting a virus that comes with downloading a cheat client.

then again, the increase probably wouldn't be incredibly serious, considering that it was possible to make a radar-hack in 1.1 by modifying a single line of code, and the amount of people using a radar-hack wasn't especially large. but why bother unnecessarily improving access to cheats?

Moreover, i'd rather let people use this feature directly than having them downloading cheats to use it. (like many did)

would it then not be more intelligent to make a closed source client with the spectator wallhack available therein?

Finally, this feature is not just about spotting cheats. I would really like to extend it to spectators (of course not subs in match). This or at least a medium size minimap on the top right replacing the radar (the mod i made some time ago and million made on his own recently which reminded me about it)

Because spectating a 1st person shooter with no indication on other players position is confusing.

the minimap would usually be sufficient for this, but many people seem to lack the patience to look at the minimap. again, a closed source client with this feature available would be a better solution than making it open source.

[Nightmare]

Merging the good stuff is clearly the way to go.

Otherwise I can code a few things people want and say 'I'll add it if you add alllllll of my work..which includes douze map clones, a flamethrower replacing shotgun, and a M249 SAW replacing Akimbo.'

Would that make AC better? imo yes, but most people would prefer to just take the stuff the majority likes and leave my flamethrowers and such inside an optional mod. That checks and balances keeps the game from being hijacked and ruled by one mind.

[Million]

would it then not be more intelligent to make a closed source client with the spectator wallhack available therein?

Yeah I agree with this, maybe make a pool so the community decide.

the minimap would usually be sufficient for this, but many people seem to lack the patience to look at the minimap. again, a closed source client with this feature available would be a better solution than making it open source.

Are we talking about this https://i.ytimg.com/vi/GACDH2mvRrU/mqdefault.jpg

If yes, maybe make it an option, the radar or this.

[al3rt]

Main concern is the control woop want over this game with all of this. Ofcourse they'd never admit it but just look at the features and their linkage.

[Orynge]

Main concern is the control woop want over this game with all of this. Ofcourse they'd never admit it but just look at the features and their linkage.

I'm waiting for the B} conspiracy as well.

[Skrillex]

Is cheerleading actually going to change anything?

Idk. You tell me.

That's gotta be some motivation for Lucas... come on this merge would benefit 95% of the community... the only 5% are the butthurt trollers..

[TheNihilanth]

You should add to the poll options something like "Yes, but only some features".

[ironzorg]

You have in one hand a group of volunteers who don't necessarily have as much time as is needed to make changes to the game on a regular basis, and on the other hand motivated people who have their own point of view as to what direction the project should take. This lead to the woop fork, and the way the fork is handled is a massive obstacle to the reunification of the two sides: instead of open sourcing all the changes, the woop AC client is completely closed-source, for the wrong reasons.

* people who download the alternative client have to trust the person who compiled it, which leads to sometimes unecessary/inaccurate accusations when the behaviour of the executable is unexpected and it's not possible to check the code to realise that said behaviour is not malicious. People who download the official archives provided by cubers.net don't necessarily recompile the entire game when they download it, and thus also trust the person who compiled the executable to be non-malicious, but at least having the possibility to do it is a proof of good faith when someone notices something weird happening (I'm refering to the executable getting a snapshot of all the processes running).

* open sourcing a project allows users who can code to contribute, and help the official maintainers in numerous ways: implement features, fix bugs, make optimisation suggestions, even address security issues. Not open sourcing a project is a big cut in how much the community will give back to it, and it's also a risk to leave bugs/vulnerabilities that potentially an educated user would have spotted if they had been able to read the code.

* close sourcing a project in the name of security is a fallacy (called "security by obscurity") that I cannot trash talk about enough. It will not protect it from cheaters, it will not make it less susceptible to being exploited (from a security point of view), and it will not prevent wannabe cheaters to have new ideas about how to go undetected when cheating. It barely reduces the chances of having someone discover that one thing that you are trying to hide from the least technical people: just look at how successful cheat developers are in games like Counter Strike, if they go through industry-level obfuscation techniques and raw ASM, that one guy in the community that will be able to do all that in AC will make a fortune with his cheats, and you will have completely shoot yourself in the foot for nothing. Most people were probably influenced by the close-sourcing of the "anticheat" server code and think it's ok because AC did it, but it's not.

* open sourcing the code of critical infrastructure, such as authentication servers or masterservers, is also a proof of good faith, and prevents the community from criticising woop's effort to improve the game (which understandably results in the clan centralizing all the traffic through servers of their own).


If the code was open, it would benefit from the things I listed above, but it could more importantly act as a branch that the core developers would pick the improvments that they think fit the game from, both teams would share security patches (more features always results in security vulnerabilities), and both teams could work more or less independently from each other.

The only issue with my logic is: the woop client looks much more like a hard fork from the original project than an experimental version of a match client. The alternative client has a different masterserver, an experimental implementation of an authentication protocol that would take time to test and integrate in the original game, and with that I assume some additional infrastructure.

Unless both sides compromise and work things out, there's no point posting polls about whether some features should get merged upstream, there will just be two AC with each a different flavour (and the gap will go wider as time goes on).

[Halte]

No people : mind to explain why you are happy with the current inactivity of the game?

@ TheNihilanth
Wow nice logic dude. You say that's its a good idea, it's needed but some feature shouldnt be added. So you vote no. YES LETS DO NOTHING. We are so good at doing nothing. TheNihilanth for leaddev plz. Next update in 5 years. Thx bro you are helping a lot.
No I shouldn't add a maybe option. I dont care about people having no opinion or being unsure. If you are unsure, then you better not post. We dont need more people like that who do not know if we should move forward or not. That already lead us to inactivity. Now its time to do something. No more hesitating cunts. You agree or you disagree. There is no coward choice like maybe. Someone did something (not you, I mean Lucas and Drakas). He is the only one who made something. You are not comfortable with some features? Well let me cry for you. Im not comfortable with no feature at all. My post sound aggressive to you? It is. You no why? Im tired of updates every 3 years and I blame people like you for that.[/spoiler]

@ironzorg:
"their own point of view as to what direction the project should take."
WE SPLIT. No reunification wanted. The goal of the dev team was always to give the game a direction. I think you missed that point. We need to change that pov. The old pov was about removing douze ctf, dust2, gemas, twintower, campers and adding map restriction. Now the players playing these maps/modes are gone. They didnt switch to official CTF maps. No, they just left. That was a mistake from the dev team so now we change our goal. We aint gonna trust again people who belong to the past and did nothing good for the game since years. WE MOVE ON with a new project, new ideas. Also if it is merged, the code will be open and you are talking about close-souce your whole post (not fluent in english, didnt read it entirely)...

@alert :

Spoiler

My main concern is the game being inactive and not updated. My main concern is people trying to do things and people trying to do nothing and writing that they are worried that some people doing things might be rewarded for what they did. Fuck you and your concern bro, gently. But at least you posted why.

@Vanquish

Spoiler

<02:18:50> "Vanquish": i dont like lucas as a person at all, but his ideas are needed

That's some brutal opinion change right? I guess its personal. Glad to see people can actually put the game interest before their own.

- I dont know who champo, mpx and phantom are so lol.
- I like Jpablon because he did a great work with the GsF client and tried to involve. But he might be still mad at how people reacted to it. Plz bro post your reason if they aint personal. We would be interested to know why.
- Graziano, dont worry, the bind will still work, you can change your vote to yes.
- Padfoot looked really confused when posting on the forum so not really surprised, he stated his opinion about how great the activty was and how we should keep not moving forward.

[Luc@s]

Unless both sides compromise and work things out

its the goal of this thread, as far as i understood.

[MPx]

- I dont know who champo, mpx and phantom are so lol.

Let me introduce myself.
I'm MPx, an AC player since 2008 but quit on 2010 for personal stuff, back on 2013. Right now, I am one of the 3 leaders of U|nbreakable Clan, I'm also the re-founder of it.


Ok, now on topic. I voted no, because there's a "wallhack" on Lucas client. I can't understand why it's present and the rest of the features.. well, I don't think they are a priority for the game.

What it is?

here are some ideas that could be considered instead of a /pause command.

http://ac-akimbo.net/showthread.php?tid=...56#pid2756
http://ac-akimbo.net/showthread.php?tid=840
http://ac-akimbo.net/showthread.php?tid=1051&page=2
http://ac-akimbo.net/showthread.php?tid=...29#pid4329

idk

ah yeah, I think the chat matrix, should be re-made. if somebody is benched (team-spect) in one team, should be able to communicate with the teammates using Y. you know, right now the benched can not do that but can chat with the opposite team spectator and no team spectators.

[Halte]

ok you voted no to everything because there is a feature that allow you to check if someone is wallhacking. Im not quite convinced by making the wallack code open too tbh. Would you vote yes without that feature?

im not confortable with it too but if someone can modify the code, it is as easy to change few lines to have a no spread, no recoil than changing the pre coded wallhack. also aimbot is already included in the code (for bot) and i never saw anyone cry about it. that's some bs arguments here.

---

so basically everyone said yes except some who voted no
- without any objectives reason ( <02:18:50> "Vanquish": i dont like lucas as a person at all, but his ideas are needed)
- some crying about the source not being open (ironzorg)
- some crying because the source code will be open (nihilnat mpx alert)
- some who didnt bother explaining why (jpablon, graziano champo phantom padfoot)

[ExodusS]

WE SPLIT. No reunification wanted. The goal of the dev team was always to give the game a direction. I think you missed that point. We need to change that pov. The old pov was about removing douze ctf, dust2, gemas, twintower, campers and adding map restriction. Now the players playing these maps/modes are gone. They didnt switch to official CTF maps. No, they just left. That was a mistake from the dev team so now we change our goal. We aint gonna trust again people who belong to the past and did nothing good for the game since years. WE MOVE ON with a new project, new ideas. Also if it is merged, the code will be open and you are talking about close-souce your whole post (not fluent in english, didnt read it entirely)...

You counter your own argument here. How can you have a project but no direction?

And what you described as "the old pov" a.k.a removing maps/modes and adding map restrictions is not correct at all, a month ago or maybe two, on this forum there was a discussion about it, involving Stef and he was just saying he was willing to remove the map restrictions.

The players of shitty maps are not gone or maybe the headshotcity1.2 and ultratwintower maps I see played right now are in fact official maps in disguise.

---

IronZorg, I am pretty sure Lucas' code is not opensource because it's not finished yet, he just does not want to see his work stolen by those who clearly saw the intention to steal it and then edit it to their own desires (EDIT: to make it clear, some people want to steal the code before it's finished, abd edit it to change the things they don't like, it has nothing to do with cheating). If his work is one day merged to the next version, it will be certainly opensource except for maybe some parts that could compromise the fight against cheaters (he wont release an anti-cheat source).

[Halte]

@Exoduss
stop going offtopic you are being irritating. also its a time waste to explain you basic stuff you failed to understand because of a poor reading. And seems you didnt vote so why you comment?

Spoiler

You counter your own argument here. How can you have a project but no direction?

Im asking for a new direction. The one lucas is trying to give the game. Something active and popular. It is clear enough but meh...

And what you described as "the old pov" a.k.a removing maps/modes and adding map restrictions is not correct at all, a month ago or maybe two, on this forum there was a discussion about it, involving Stef and he was just saying he was willing to remove the map restrictions.

A month ago??? Bro Im here since 5 years. Im not talking about the past month. Im talking about these five years and the 2 poor updates there was. You tell me that a month ago some devs realised that they were wrong?
When they decided to add map restrictions that was a direction given to the game.
When they removed douze CTF that was a direction given to the game.
When they enforced map restriction in order to remove gemas and camper and twintower that was a direction given to the game.
These are facts that happened with 1.2 and started way before.

Im glad stef is with us to give the game a new direction (at least on that point).
Do you understand what I write or do you want me to PM you in french?

The players of shitty maps are not gone or maybe the headshotcity1.2 and ultratwintower maps I see played right now are in fact official maps in disguise.

Im fucking glad they didnt all left the game. but so many are gone. they were the only active players. I remember a time with 10-15 servers with tosok, gemas, camper, twintower and douze ctf. Now I still see some twintower and camper. But I dont see much more servers with official CTF maps. Conclusion : they left.

[MPx]

ok, I don't understand about codes or programming or that kind of stuff.. but what I heard is that the source code its kinda messy. I don't know if that is intentional (to not give a clue to the hackers wannabe about what important parts of the code does) or they are just messy.
My point it's that there's a priority on what should be developed first. In my opinion. Yes, a better anti-cheat should be done before make official some useful silly commands for matches. I don't care if the code is open or not. I understand Lucas position about his client and yes, should not be open until some bugs are lifted (fixed) and I would like to see another match client without a wallhack (or heat radar if you want to call it like that.)

I dont understand your point. You opinion is: "it doesn't matter. if anybody can change the source code, a 'pre made wallhack' should does not make the difference"?

[ironzorg]

WE SPLIT. No reunification wanted.

Then why make this thread about merging contents, which is about unifying parts of the two code bases ?

For the record, I voted no to the poll because I don't think the two teams will agree on what to include in the official client (it's kind of hard to see what would be included exactly because no code is available anyway), and having people work on an alternative is always good no matter what the project is. However, the only way both sides will benefit from this is if everything is open source, for the reasons I mentioned in my earlier post (code reviews, community contributions, trust issues, no security by obscurity). If it doesn't happen, one side will always be seen as the guys who tried to take over AC, and the other side as the ones who didn't compromise to help the project evolve (which they are willing to, as far as I know).

→ Open source everything (or at least the client, which everybody downloads and runs on their computer, and maybe later the infrastructure stuff to allow distribution of the traffic).

---

IronZorg, I am pretty sure Lucas' code is not opensource because it's not finished yet, he just does not want to see his work stolen by those who clearly saw the intention to steal it and then edit it to their own desires (EDIT: to make it clear, some people want to steal the code before it's finished, abd edit it to change the things they don't like, it has nothing to do with cheating). If his work is one day merged to the next version, it will be certainly opensource except for maybe some parts that could compromise the fight against cheaters (he wont release an anti-cheat source).

"Stealing code and editing it to their own desires" is merely improving what code already exists. AssaultCube would not exist if driAn hadn't edited the cube engine code to make it into AC. Code stealing is prevented against with licenses, and using already existing code to implement a new feature is progress, even if the code wasn't open in the first place, the feature would still be implemented somehow.

Not releasing such a critical unit such as the anticheat engine proves that it is not ready to be used: if you can go around it by reading the code, then it's obviously a pretty poor cheating detection system. The most secure/reliable algorithms are always open source to allow more than one person to understand it and eventually figure out why it's coming up with false positives, or how to improve it to prevent people from finding loopholes in the algorithms. AC did none of that, several good players have been (maybe wrongly) flagged as cheaters by the engine, and nobody who could have understand how they could have (presumably) been false positives had any chance of doing so because the code is inaccessible.

→ Open sourcing the code leads to improvments, not "stealing" (unless the licenses are not respected in which case it's only a matter of hurting the original coder's ego because the attribution is lacking), and any closed source security engine will work against its community.

[Luc@s]

@ironzorg the reason why we kept it close source during that time was to allow us to develop it with all the freedom we need and leaving all the options open in case people are not interested in this community. the rest is irrelevant. Maybe you don't understand why because you don't know how the development is working in AC (or i should say, not working).

who didn't compromise to help the project evolve (which they are willing to, as far as I know).

And how do you know that ? Because, /afaik/, what i only got after 6 months from them was 1 positive vote here from XRD and a message from stef that says i can put some things on a separate branch. Thats all, after 6 months - but no discussion about the features, which indicates me if i make it open source it will remain sitting in its branch and never be used.

What i want now, is to discuss, one by one, the features planned. Then, if my code appears to be good enough, we use it. Otherwise, we write it differently. Thats it.

[MorganKell]

If stef wants to talk his dev right then He will own out and Show Up! You seem to be along the lines and most importantly got the desire too fking CRUSH.

---

Can we discuss this 30 point devkill or we just going to sit there and do naught regards it? Hey Stef, glad to see you back. Did you decide to man up and fight for AC or was it your Momma's tits that forced you back?

---

LUCAS. Don't touch my warnings. You silence me, that is it. It's done. I will not support AC ever again. You try the best you can? I will give my all for AC and I will deliver.

---

LucaS, fix my shit...

[stef]

Lucas, I told you months ago that you can't publish sources of a wallhack - and why the feature doesn't help in the first place. I also told you then and again recently, that you simply need to publish the code - yes, preferably as branch on your github fork - once you cleaned out the wallhack. A discussion about the /merging/ of unseen code is ludicrous. If you can't handle the impact of publishing the code on your "options" (whatever that means), then that is your problem...

I do understand you keeping some stuff hidden during development, because you want to avoid discussing unfinished stuff. For similar reasons I have only parts of the new server code visible on github. However, you won't see me publishing binaries of the finished thing. We have a great platform to show and discuss source code and features. Of course, it would be nice, if the forum could also be used for civil discussions, but apparently, that's not gonna happen...

I can't imagine, that the wallhack is integral to any other features of your code, so removing it should not affect anything else. Remove it and publish the code. Discussing hidden code leads to nothing. Btw, I didn't say, you "can" put your code in a separate branch, as if I had to allow it. Putting stuff in branches is just how git (and github) works. Judging from your last public commit, you're still in your "getting used to git" phase.

Lucas, publish the sources or stop talking about your client. Since you posted it, we had nothing but useless discussions (or more correct: fights) about the secret sources and what your binaries may contain. It's ridiculous.

Regarding the wallhack: even boron (who also published a wallhack) admitted almost immediately, that it was a stupid idea - and he tried really hard to remove it from sf. I think, that should tell you something ;)

PS: Yes, I never asked to see the secret sources, and I never discussed the features with you. That's because a) I don't waste my time on secret sources and b) most of the features are mere window-dressing. There's no point in adding team sorting and nice little flags as long as there are severe bugs in the core of the game. You may have noticed, that I focus on engine repairs and cleanups and cleaning stuff from the core up. I only went with editor stuff and map features for a while, because mappers need to be able to start mapping for a new release /before/ it comes out - and because a lot of custom game media has to be cleaned up and adjusted for the next version as well.

[ironzorg]

@ironzorg the reason why we kept it close source during that time was to allow us to develop it with all the freedom we need and leaving all the options open in case people are not interested in this community. the rest is irrelevant. Maybe you don't understand why because you don't know how the development is working in AC (or i should say, not working).

Actually I did write a few fixes for the game recently, and they were merged in and discussed in a fairly decent time. I created my own branch on the repo (although not publicly because one of the fixes was a security issue), sent the patch to the devs on IRC, and it got delt with within 1-2 weeks. I don't understand how creating your own branch/fork on github (in a public repository) would have not granted you the freedom you want to implement things, or how it "closed" some options.

And how do you know that ? Because, /afaik/, what i only got after 6 months from them was 1 positive vote here from XRD and a message from stef that says i can put some things on a separate branch. Thats all, after 6 months - but no discussion about the features, which indicates me if i make it open source it will remain sitting in its branch and never be used.

As stated previously, I myself didn't have any issue with contributing to the codebase (and I'm not an official developer for the project), so maybe you used the wrong approach to present your contributions. C.f. my rant about opensource, and stef's post.

What i want now, is to discuss, one by one, the features planned. Then, if my code appears to be good enough, we use it. Otherwise, we write it differently. Thats it.

That's good to hear, you could create a pull requests for every feature you would like to see merged upstream, and the commenting/discussing will happen on github (but you will have to open your fork's code for that).

[Luc@s]

Actually I did write a few fixes for the game recently, and they were merged in and discussed in a fairly decent time. I created my own branch on the repo (although not publicly because one of the fixes was a security issue), sent the patch to the devs on IRC, and it got delt with within 1-2 weeks. I don't understand how creating your own branch/fork on github (in a public repository) would have not granted you the freedom you want to implement things, or how it "closed" some options.

Indeed, you don't understand. And your comparison is again, irrelevant.
We are not talking about fixes, we are talking about a project which requires the involvement of the whole team on the long term. The features mentioned in this thread are maybe 15% of the project. Do you have any idea what we are talking about ? I don't think so. It clearly doesn't look like you do.

We want a global change for the game - that involve much more than a "merge request" can do. We need a domain name, a website, authentication, account registration. We need many testers, many contributors in different area (for instance designing the website, the different features, and defining competitive standards).

Your comparisons are offtopic, same as your attempt to turn it into a opensource vs close source debate which is again not the matter at all.

I've done similar things in the past already, why are you trying to make it look like i don't know it /can/ work sometimes. I like to refer to the example of akimbo and the autodownload, because i had to work on the whole thing from the beginning. But two devs helped me with it (tempest and cleaner). They knew it was a good project and worked on it. Currently, i don't see any active developer who looks interested in the project and who wants to help. In this case, how is it going to get implemented ? I have 0 guarantee. And in this case, the only option left would be to make it a mod for AC, and to make an "external" league based on our mod. Which is obviously not the solution i prefer.

[Luc@s]

[...]

You don't get it. Before discussing the code, discuss the ideas. I want these ideas to be discussed. You are interested ? Fine, i'll release the source - the part which i consider solid enough. I don't have that much time ATM, but i started working on it - i will need to port the existing code to a clone of the "next" branch. The wallhack thing is a tiny detail, i don't care about it.

[Padfoot]

WE SPLIT.

Right. So you want to take a game with limited players, and then split it, dividing a community. There may not be a lot of opposition to it, . Great idea... it's been done. Have a look at AssaultCube reloaded. Look at all the people playing that. Such a successful game right there. If you can't be bothered playing it, it has a bunch of featured that a more "mainstream" game would have, along with more realistic physics, etc. It actually has a few good features. It didn't catch on. Your idea won't.

Honestly, first you have a poll about merging the w00p client with the AC one, and then you talk about making a whole new project. Make up your mind.

WE MOVE ON with a new project.

Also, if you're going to say that I said something, provide quotes. Go for it.
As a final note, how the fuck do you know what I looked like when posting?

-Padfoot

[Halte]

@mpx

Spoiler

you think more important things should be done so we should do nothing else while they arent done? And who is doing these important things? You? Stop dreaming, we merge things that are done, not hypothetical updates.

what about the pre made aimbot? You you say nothing about it? Should we remove bot? I say if someone can open the code and recompile, he would have 0 problem cheating. That's always the problem with open source games.

@Padfoot

Spoiler

we split the dev team not teh community. splitting the player base has already been done when they killed campers and gemas. wasnt a good idea. we split inactives from actives devs. the woop client is the new project. no more idlers. more updates. add some ideas. i want more changes.

@Lucas
You now have enough back up but I see many people do not feel comfortable with the wallhack. Would you be open to remove that feature lucas? I dont think it is such a big dead.

[Jpablon]

I don't doubt about the good intentions of Lucas, and if the changes are for the greater good nobody will be opposed to it, but try to force it using a poll is not serious a thing (to be honest It is one of the stupidest things I've ever seen on this community (1cap posts get the first prize)). That is the main reason for my negative vote, not all changes are for good, and add new features not necessarily improve the game. Some of them should be removed (like the server switch to set the bandwidth limit, if you don't have enough bandwidth should not run a server in first place).

About the wallhack, you can't call to it a "match client" and put a wallhack on it. Considering the nature of client (supposed to be more safe than the regular one) it's too risky do it.
http://pastebin.com/fc8fiaPj (do you see?).

Probably It's to time to raise the bar a little, start to think on biggest changes rather than sporadic improvements (but keeping realistic goals). I mean take advantage of new hardware for example, better file formats (the demo format is a mess, it does not hold any kind of relevant information (like server address or date), so it relies on the file name to determine the date and game mode (there is a chance for servers owners to customize the demo file name, so it is not consistent at all)).

Halte please stop acting like a douchebag just because some people have a different opinion does not meant you have the right to discredit them.

[Halte]

cant say anything against you bro. i see u as the true ac dev. Im edward btw, huge fan of your work xoxo
but i cant stop myself. i want changes i wont let people keep stopping change. yes im forcing it. because 3 years is way too long. i lost patience.

the poll reflect what the community think. and i guess half of the 10 people who voted against would change their vote if the wallhack was removed and the code open. time to make compromise lucas and to trust the community

[ironzorg]

Indeed, you don't understand. And your comparison is again, irrelevant.
We are not talking about fixes, we are talking about a project which requires the involvement of the whole team on the long term. The features mentioned in this thread are maybe 15% of the project. Do you have any idea what we are talking about ? I don't think so. It clearly doesn't look like you do.

Like I said before, you don't want to ask for a change in an open source project by creating a closed source fork, and then demanding your private changes to be merged. C.f. stef's post.

We want a global change for the game - that involve much more than a "merge request" can do. We need a domain name, a website, authentication, account registration. We need many testers, many contributors in different area (for instance designing the website, the different features, and defining competitive standards).

Much bigger changes than those you want to make (as far as we can tell, because once again it's hard to see what changes you've actually made to the game without running a third-party executable and without code) have been made to much bigger projects than AC with just pull requests. The tools provided by github/bitbucket and the likes are adapted to those cases, and scale vertically very well.

Your comparisons are offtopic, same as your attempt to turn it into a opensource vs close source debate which is again not the matter at all.

It is definitely a big part of the issue at hand, it's usually very convenient to have some code to show to the developers you're trying to convince to implement/include your changes. But even beyond that, the mere idea of not leaving your code open is a mistake (for all the reasons I wrote in my post).

I've done similar things in the past already, why are you trying to make it look like i don't know it /can/ work sometimes. I like to refer to the example of akimbo and the autodownload, because i had to work on the whole thing from the beginning. But two devs helped me with it (tempest and cleaner). They knew it was a good project and worked on it. Currently, i don't see any active developer who looks interested in the project and who wants to help. In this case, how is it going to get implemented ? I have 0 guarantee. And in this case, the only option left would be to make it a mod for AC, and to make an "external" league based on our mod. Which is obviously not the solution i prefer.

It used to work, back in the days of AC < 1.0. The community could just make a thread on the forums to voice their ideas, and people in charge of development would consider/discuss them. It's not possible to do that now, since the community has significantly grown in size, developers don't want to weed through 300+ messages (most of which only contain unconstructive complaints, nowadays). The whole point of using github is to centralize the issues into a single place (the issue tracker), where each issue is discussed separately and assigned to a developer for them to fix. Pull requests are used to allow you to contribute to the project directly by implementing what you want to see the game use (you usually implement your ideas after discussing them in an issue on the tracker, to prevent you from wasting your time on coding something that the official developers think doesn't fit into the project), and to seperate a large amount of changes into small parts that the developers can pick individually. You can even fix some issues yourself if you don't want to wait for the people in charge to do it. I'm not saying everything would have gone your way if you had done that in the first place, but it would have certainly prevented miscommunication as to what was a good fit for AC, and also prevented discussions to spread over 10+ threads.

On a seperate note: nobody (except Torvalds maybe) ever gets their point across by writing bitter messages and throwing insults wrapped in frustration on a public discussion platform, this is dragging you down and you should drop it. If you are confident your point of view on things is the best one, you can still move on with your work without telling everyone they don't understand and don't make relevant observations.

---

About the wallhack thing: it would be a major contradiction not to include it, especially considering it's a useful tool to use when watching demos, and also considering that there's already plenty of code that can be used as-is to create cheats in the project (like the bot's aiming aids, as stated before). It will not help people create cheats more easily, since there are already plenty of public cheats online that allow players to wallhack in AC, it will just stall AC itself. And even if the code wasn't included, there's plenty of documentation online about how to apply semi-transparency to opengl textures, so not including it is a kind of security through obscurity, except the feature isn't implemented at all.

[Nightmare]

I don't think we have to worry about it being used. In the vanq video, it looks like the enemies are in the rvsf base, then he goes mid and it changes to show they were mid all along. If I used this thing, I'd get worse at AC.

[Luc@s]

most of the features are mere window-dressing. There's no point in adding team sorting and nice little flags as long as there are severe bugs in the core of the game.

Thanks for showing you have no clue whats behind the project.