lightwalk for all ...
#1
fs_tangtop
Posted 05 January 2011 - 04:24
Before I go about implementing this in the helper, I was hoping I could talk you into implementing it in the core code.
I have posted a fix for the broken lightwalk, but I have no access to the source code, so cannot change it there.
I could implement it in the helper, but think it would be best if it was implemented for all.
The idea is to make walking faster for all.
Right now, if you have a crappy connection, walking across a map takes forever. In fact, even if you have a decent connection, walking still takes forever. The lightwalk script made it faster by sending the moves, but not bothering to wait for the refresh, but sending the next walk command before the page reloaded, and continuing to do so until the user stopped sending moves.
Khanate posted a thread regarding this some time in the past and since then the lightwalk script came about. I could only find the following thread regarding his suggestion.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=92197
Another possibility could be something similar to what was used back in mud's in the day where you could run in a direction and it would go until you hit a wall (e.g. if you hit the run key, then the right arrow, it would run in that direction until you hit a wall, then refresh). You could make it so that the 's' key put you in run mode (dynamically - without refresh), then choosing a direction would sprint you in that direction.
#2
Posted 05 January 2011 - 05:17
[Signature removed]
“When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say.” -GRRM
#4
Posted 05 January 2011 - 05:36
Just one old lady's opinion

~Love, Penny
Have you hugged your Quango lately?
#5
Posted 05 January 2011 - 05:47
#6
Posted 05 January 2011 - 06:04
Would likely be possible either way. And who says they would take out that message? I would assume it would remain since if they were to this, it would likely be optimum as a preference you could switch on and off. Or at least thats how I envision it.I think implementing it in the core code would be a MISTAKE.
Right now, by doing it in a client-side script, there are bugs. If a packet arrives out of order to the server (or gets dropped), you get the dreaded "Cannot move more than 1" message and get stopped in mid-move. While this is an annoyance . . . I believe this flakiness makes it harder to fully automate moving to the Titan with a script. So,
Implementing multi-square movement in the core would just enable cheating in my opinion.
So because it would be too easy to program a script to instantly move you to the Titan if multi-move was in the core, let's not do that.
Summary-
Do it... Do it... Do it...
#7
Posted 05 January 2011 - 06:18
Why don't you leave the technical points up to the devs? Tangtop has proven himself(with others) capable of putting the Helper for the community to use successfully. If he suggests it I'm gonna error on his side, that they can do it. The current Lightwalk doesn't work too well. At least not for me. So if HCS can't throw it together, I will eagerly await the Helper Team's effort.You miss the point. The message is because using a client-side script to do this is inherently unreliable because of the vagaries of the Intenet. A server-side capability would not have that unreliability. Reliable response = easier to create a cheat script for.
[Signature removed]
“When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say.” -GRRM
#8
Posted 05 January 2011 - 06:35
[Signature removed]
“When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say.” -GRRM
#9
Posted 05 January 2011 - 06:40
I didnt miss your point. What I was saying is that if people really want to, they will find ways to cheat with "ease" of doing so being of little matter. That is no reason to exclude an update that that would make it more fair playing legit without using 3rd party scripts.I am FINE with putting it into FSHelper: FS Helper is client-side, not server-side.Why don't you leave the technical points up to the devs? Tangtop has proven himself(with others) capable of putting the Helper for the community to use successfully. If he suggests it I'm gonna error on his side, that they can do it. The current Lightwalk doesn't work too well. At least not for me. So if HCS can't throw it together, I will eagerly await the Helper Team's effort.You miss the point. The message is because using a client-side script to do this is inherently unreliable because of the vagaries of the Intenet. A server-side capability would not have that unreliability. Reliable response = easier to create a cheat script for.
And I am fully competent to discuss the technical points. I've coded for decades, and architected crypto systems, which is all about crafting systems that don't let people "cheat." So I think my perspective is valuable, more so than that of people who don't know coding, how the internet works, or the fundamentals of infosec. These votes mean nothing, because the voters are clueless as to the issues involved.
Now I will be the first to admit I dont know much about such things, but from my perspective, if what you say about you coding and crafting systems that dont allow people to cheat being true, it would seem to me your vote here sounds like protecting some interest in some modification you made to make the 3rd party script better for you. Just a thought, its really easy to accuse people of cheating when you dont know better, and seems to be the fave trend in this game when it comes to titans.
But you passing off these votes as meaningless is blatantly disgusting. Weather or not the cows could do it and could do it with such preventive measures to stop what you are saying from happening has nothing to do with the community expressing that they want something implemented. Once again, I dont know anything about it, but you would think such cheater scripts would be alot easier to detect without a third party script being there in the first place.
Now I remember why I hardly check the forums anymore :|
#10
fs_tangtop
Posted 05 January 2011 - 06:51
So making this functionality part of the core code, and making it work for all seems to me to be much fairer for all, especially when it comes to titan hunting.
So while LawDog26 is right, it would make it easier for people to make scripts to take advantage of it, I would also honestly say that I think that those someones are already using scripts to do exactly that. I would rather HCS implements this to make it fairer for all, and then continues to work to prevent automated scripting that gives players advantages over others.
#12
Posted 05 January 2011 - 07:41
Otherwise I'm fine with the script intergrated in FSH. I wonder how many people use FSH anyway? Maybe we could get an in-game poll.
#13
fs_sollimaw
Posted 05 January 2011 - 08:00
Put it in the game to make it fair.
#14
Posted 05 January 2011 - 12:48
Khanate posted a thread regarding this some time in the past and since then the lightwalk script came about. I could only find the following thread regarding his suggestion.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=92197
I think that's the only thread, plus the Lightwalk script one.
I voted yes.
#15
Posted 05 January 2011 - 14:19
We have the code for client-side. It's been debugged pretty well, and when it breaks, we can still play. It doesn't make it too easy to write a cheat script for movement because the Internet is not completely deterministic. So for allt hese reasons, I think we should stick with a client side implementation of the Lightwalk technology.
So you mean that if something breaks the game movement will become laggier until it is fixed again? I can live with that if everything speeds up the rest of the time 8)
#16
Posted 05 January 2011 - 14:38
We have the code for client-side. It's been debugged pretty well, and when it breaks, we can still play. It doesn't make it too easy to write a cheat script for movement because the Internet is not completely deterministic. So for allt hese reasons, I think we should stick with a client side implementation of the Lightwalk technology.
So you mean that if something breaks the game movement will become laggier until it is fixed again? I can live with that if everything speeds up the rest of the time 8)
Noooo... the lag im experiencing now sucks big time.
#17
Posted 05 January 2011 - 14:57

#18
fs_dougmines
Posted 05 January 2011 - 15:16
#19
Posted 05 January 2011 - 15:37
And as doug said, DURL should be implemented.
#20
fs_karlososos
Posted 05 January 2011 - 16:02
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


