Mods in ranked games.

Yeah, the client shouldn't even have the data of stuff the server hasn't sent you.

Yeah it seems the radar blips are more than just blips under the hood, even if they have not been scouted before.

Yes, they are. They appear to be full units already, that means not only the blip but also the unit spec attached. You are not subscribed to the full event list for these units though, only movement, which however DOES also include base rotation. Visible or not is just a binary flag which can be toggled, and you are subscribed to additional events server side once it is set.

So why does the client refuse to show actual unit icons instead of the anonymous blip? Guess it's purely client side in this case.

But even if the spec WASN'T send, the blips are still revealing more information than they should by elevation. Yes, blips have elevation, they are not projected onto terrain as the actual units themselves have their center point not on the ground but mid air as well. Precise elevation depends on the units hitbox size. (And for aircraft it's even more obvious.)

I don't know if bone positions (not root bone) are also send by default, I mean the bones which are controlled by procedural aiming, not the ones used in walk animations.

Looks like one of the devs was REALLY lazy on radar blips, let's hope that was only a first DRAFT for the actual intelligence system. (Wishlist for the next iteration? Remembering what blips were, and stationary ghosts for units you lost track of until identified again.)

I don't see why a radar system should not be able to reveal the elevation of a detected unit. The only issue might be that it is not as easy to see. But it's not some debug mode that reveals more info than it should.

It reveals not elevation above ground. It reveals elevation of the unit CENTER above ground. Which means every non-flat unit is floating.

Ah okay that isn't optimal indeed.

Sending a full unit rather than reserving an own entity type for blips isn't optimal either.

Well, the mistake is actually to send the actual unit itself as "blip" rather than generating simple per-player imposters, which would have also been the prerequisite for generating immobile "ghosts". (Which would also work together with the Chronocam!)

they could always remove this view from the client and put it in the server '(for single player) instead right?

I use this view a lot in games. Helps see where units can and can't go so really useful on water and lava planets.

A view is fundamentally a client function. The client could not display that information out of sight (but if it's there a dedicated attacker could put it back), and it might be possible to have the server send less information to the client. In theory a blip just needs a location, although once you've scouted it, the client probably wouldn't forget the extra information.

well that's another debate entirely : https://forums.uberent.com/threads/...lips-and-the-general-approach-to-intel.49424/

So the current modding system is directly feeding .js script into the browser? Okay, securing that is off the table then. Would be easier to tech a sun to step-dance.
But if they ever add an interpretation layer between the Mod code and the JS script that interprets it, doing a check would become trivial (that is propably what the ESO's lua interpreter does. It is suprisingly effective, reliable, cheap and robust):

Code:

functionCall(FunctionName, saveCode, arguments[]){
saveCode = saveCode && thisFunction.isSaveCode
if(thisFunction.IsPrivate() && !saveCode)
   throw new Exception("Private function called from unsave code")

//Execute the operation wanted by the interpreted code, including calling another instance of this function:
  functionCall(otherFunctionName, saveCide, arguments[])
}

If, and only if.
Until then I guess the only limit are server mods and that you can only up your UI, not disrupt the others.

I don't think implementing such a system is reasonable for Uber. The client/server separation is already quite a good anti cheat measure vs "real" cheats like maphacks or the like.

What about when people start hosting their own servers? Although I guess I'm most likely not going to play games against randoms hosting their own servers because who would know if there server is any good. I'd rather use Uber's servers.

You don't even SEE these self hosted servers in the online server browser. But there are also modded games, running on Ubers server which can reveal this informations as well by enabling the UBER PROVIDED cheat modes. If you however choose to play ONLY on unmodded, Uber hosted servers, then you will never see any cheating.

Clients connecting to the server shouldn't based on my knowledge be sent the information to see such things anyway.

The person hosting the server can cheat to see stuff as suggested above, but yeah, if your hosting to cheat then, well there isn't much I can say...

What? This fell to the second page? I don't want the fish to die, so I will throw in some healthy bait to feed them and get them all stirred back up again.

No, seriously, I actually have a legitimate question though. I notice PAStats and ModPing, one uses a server pass info, and one checks client files and specifically mods. Put the two together.... ???... make a PunkBuster sorta? You know, an input that can't be tampered with that checks and confirms and securely sends transmission that the client is using such and such mods or no mods at all.

Then you can ban mods from tournaments if you want, or not which I strongly suspect because even tournament operators like mods. Either way. Technically doable.

The thing is, client side mods are per definition legitimate. Nothing to check there, at least in terms of mod content. You could enforce using only a sanctioned subset of mods (and versions) for competitive play, though. Which would need to be checked by another mod, presumably. Delicious irony.

They are legitimate, but a mod could in fact enforce which other mods are being used or ensure no additional mods are if those are the agreed upon rules.

If you have an arguement with the ironic situation of a mod enforcing mods in a competitive scene, well you are about 12 years too late, punkbuster came out in 2001? It is a client side that checks everything else about the client side, and has been around forever. It really can't be argued at this point, it literally has deeper roots than any FA arguement you can use against it. If punkbuster has worked until now in games from 2001 to present, a version for it for PA for those who wish to design and then use it, would not be something to argue against.

I am just appreciating the irony, is all. That this thing lacks novelty should not impede it, I think.