Author Topic: Feature Request: Limit sv_minclientbuild  (Read 7748 times)

Zorchenhimer

  • Autococker
  • Posts: 2614
Feature Request: Limit sv_minclientbuild
« on: May 22, 2008, 10:52:15 AM »
I propose to have the sv_minclientbuild cvar not be able to be set under build 18 (17 wasn't an official release).  This will effectively eliminate the ZGH cheaters.

KnacK

  • Global Moderator
  • Autococker
  • Posts: 3039
Re: Feature Request: Limit sv_minclientbuild
« Reply #1 on: May 22, 2008, 11:07:01 AM »

wafflez205

  • 68 Carbine
  • Posts: 275
Re: Feature Request: Limit sv_minclientbuild
« Reply #2 on: May 22, 2008, 01:02:07 PM »
it all works. we just need a feature vote to come up on one. wait all the hackers will vote no on the vote just so they can use ZGH

KnacK

  • Global Moderator
  • Autococker
  • Posts: 3039
Re: Feature Request: Limit sv_minclientbuild
« Reply #3 on: May 22, 2008, 01:34:17 PM »
it all works. we just need a feature vote to come up on one. wait all the hackers will vote no on the vote just so they can use ZGH

All the more reason to do this: http://dplogin.com/forums/index.php?topic=13274.0

Zorchenhimer

  • Autococker
  • Posts: 2614
Re: Feature Request: Limit sv_minclientbuild
« Reply #4 on: May 22, 2008, 01:52:17 PM »
Knack:  I would prefer that too.  But I have a feeling this has a better chance of getting implemented.  :P

KnacK

  • Global Moderator
  • Autococker
  • Posts: 3039
Re: Feature Request: Limit sv_minclientbuild
« Reply #5 on: May 22, 2008, 02:03:38 PM »
Sorry, its just one of my pet peeves as you will always have those trying to cheat the system.

wafflez205

  • 68 Carbine
  • Posts: 275
Re: Feature Request: Limit sv_minclientbuild
« Reply #6 on: May 22, 2008, 03:07:10 PM »
Knack + Cheaters =

Cameron

  • Global Moderator
  • Autococker
  • Posts: 2686
Re: Feature Request: Limit sv_minclientbuild
« Reply #7 on: May 22, 2008, 03:10:42 PM »
All the more reason to do this: http://dplogin.com/forums/index.php?topic=13274.0
I thinked for a long time and decided to go with this.  As long as it stops hackers.  But jits just said in there to do this.

Garrett

  • Autococker
  • Posts: 1372
Re: Feature Request: Limit sv_minclientbuild
« Reply #8 on: May 22, 2008, 04:35:42 PM »
it all works. we just need a feature vote to come up on one. wait all the hackers will vote no on the vote just so they can use ZGH
Most cheaters don't even go on these forums.  They make a account on here just so they can try to argue their ban.  What you say here most likely won't be a problem.

wafflez205

  • 68 Carbine
  • Posts: 275
Re: Feature Request: Limit sv_minclientbuild
« Reply #9 on: May 24, 2008, 01:25:51 AM »
lets just get this implemented without a vote so we can rid of most of these hackers

Eiii

  • Autococker
  • Posts: 4595
Re: Feature Request: Limit sv_minclientbuild
« Reply #10 on: May 24, 2008, 01:30:51 AM »
lets just get this implemented without a vote so we can rid of most of these hackers
You so stupid. Why?

Everything has to be voted on. Everything. You want something pushed to the front that badly, donate money. Other people have other priorities that probably don't exactly mirror your own.

i_am_a_pirate

  • Autococker
  • Posts: 759
Re: Feature Request: Limit sv_minclientbuild
« Reply #11 on: May 25, 2008, 12:19:21 PM »
This should be a REALLY simple thing to do, so why can't jits write 1 line of code and get it over and done with?

jitspoe

  • Administrator
  • Autococker
  • Posts: 18801
Re: Feature Request: Limit sv_minclientbuild
« Reply #12 on: May 28, 2008, 09:10:34 AM »
It's not really that simple.  If server admins want people with older clients to be able to connect, they'll stop updating the server (hard enough to get them to update as it is).  Also, it will just force the need for a new cheat that works with a more current version of the game, which is more of a headache than just dealing with the already existing and detectable cheats.  I'd rather have somebody use a known cheat, get caught and banned, than have somebody find or create a new cheat that isn't currently detectable and get away with it.

Edit: But whatever... I'll put it up for vote anyway. http://dplogin.com/dplogin/featurevote/feature.php?id=10146

i_am_a_pirate

  • Autococker
  • Posts: 759
Re: Feature Request: Limit sv_minclientbuild
« Reply #13 on: May 28, 2008, 11:10:30 AM »
I'd rather have somebody use a known cheat, get caught and banned, than have somebody find or create a new cheat that isn't currently detectable and get away with it.

Ouch. Didn't think of that... maybe its a -1...

y00tz

  • Autococker
  • Posts: 2742
Re: Feature Request: Limit sv_minclientbuild
« Reply #14 on: May 28, 2008, 11:58:38 AM »
Ouch. Didn't think of that... maybe its a -1...

I've been following this forum for years, and he's said it probably 12-20 times.

i_am_a_pirate

  • Autococker
  • Posts: 759
Re: Feature Request: Limit sv_minclientbuild
« Reply #15 on: May 28, 2008, 12:16:20 PM »
yeah, well, if you look at the date I joined the forums....

wafflez205

  • 68 Carbine
  • Posts: 275
Re: Feature Request: Limit sv_minclientbuild
« Reply #16 on: May 30, 2008, 02:00:47 PM »
isn't it against the law to hack computers?

i_am_a_pirate

  • Autococker
  • Posts: 759
Re: Feature Request: Limit sv_minclientbuild
« Reply #17 on: May 30, 2008, 03:10:46 PM »
Don't think so. DP is free so I'm not sure that it is illegal

EDIT

I'm gonna get flamed for that.. I'M IN A HURRY!!!

Garrett

  • Autococker
  • Posts: 1372
Re: Feature Request: Limit sv_minclientbuild
« Reply #18 on: May 30, 2008, 03:14:45 PM »
What these 'hackers' are doing isn't hacking.  Its just a common word that people use in the place for the word 'cheater'.

Eiii

  • Autococker
  • Posts: 4595
Re: Feature Request: Limit sv_minclientbuild
« Reply #19 on: May 30, 2008, 03:22:09 PM »
isn't it against the law to hack computers?
It's against the law to break into someone else's property, yes. There were some laws passed about that that pertain specifically to computers and such, but I can't remember what they are. But what these people are doing aren't hacking in the sense you're thinking of.