Dead Project?

[Dipset]

I'm with ya. And agree. I don't really think that slicing up the mul files ought to have been that conceptually "hard". Bunches of it has been relatively well documented, from InsideUO. Labor? Who knows, one would have to ask Krrios. But I'm thinking that state management due to protocol interaction was probably some of the trickier stuff in the client.

C//

What makes it hard is doing it in the proper way so you're not wasting any memory (like the animation memory leak that plauged PlayUO (the fix look like you were running but didn't animate, I though it was cool though)).

I'm more of a engine/network guys and not too good with graphics.

 

[punt59]

My opinon is any developer can choose the license they want for whatever reason.

Having said that, I also believe it is in error for one to "rationalize" not doing something due to "cheating". It is more a control issue. One is controlling, through "information" control, who gets to define cheating. What do I mean by that?

Simply put, one makes a tool, that doesn't have an obvious identification mechanism for shard owners to reject players using it. So suddenly, the control of defining cheating, is in the makers of the tool. If they don't feel it to be cheating, even if other shard owners don't agree, the shard operators options are limited. So if more people have access to this type of information, suddenly more can make tools, that meet their own defination of "not cheating", which of course, may not agree with the orginal tool makers definitions. At some point, yes, one may get a majority agreement, but it is really about control of defining cheating.

Now, regardless, no one is under obligation to release information, for whatever reason. Yes, it would be great if more picked up client development. And there is truely a lot of information all ready available, to make it possible to start (at least to the point where graphics shouldn't be the issue). The least available documentation is how clients respond to certain sequences of packets, versus graphic manipulation. And then of course, just the hard work of designing and managing the data internally in the first place.

No question more information or source "could" help someone, but there isn't a guarantee. If there is really a desire to develop a client (more platform independent), then one might have suspected there would be more developers starting such projects based on avialable information all ready (Wolfpack/Iris/etc). That might be the first start that would show some interest.

 

[Courageous]

Here are my thoughts, my personal opinion on the matter:

The relative merit in keeping the source closed, with the purpose of keeping cheating minimalized, has less value to the community than an open client does, regardless of the cheating.

I find it a real shame that the client appears to be dying on the fine. I'm a big fan of this client. Whatever else you have to say, I think we can all agree that it would be good if it were being worked on by several peopl.

C//

 

[shrundowr]

Having said that, I also believe it is in error for one to "rationalize" not doing something due to "cheating". It is more a control issue. One is controlling, through "information" control, who gets to define cheating. What do I mean by that?

Sounds a little accusatory to me.

EDIT: Further explantion since my post sounded accustory by accusing you of accusing.

I sincerely doubt that either Zippy or krrios are keeping their projects closed source for controlling purposes. The fact is people do cheat, that is why even the default client has to be patched, people are asses and will hack and exploit and even worse releases their hacks/exploits to the public for other people to abuse. By opening the source to PlayUO it would only make those pricks' job easier. You are correct, howver in the fact that what is a cheat can be defined. I myself consider Razor or any Macroing tool a cheat. But if you look at ConnectUO, also a RUO team project, you'll see that you can prevent players from using Razor. That kind of check and balance kinda goes against this whole "controlling" thing that you were talking about

 

[punt59]

Sounds a little accusatory to me.

Wasn't meant to be, just trying to get down to what is being accomplished. Cheating is subjective, unless one takes the stance, it offers anything not in the original game. So, it is an effective way to "control information", because others may develop something different then "your" definition, based on the information. So at the root, it is control of information. Nothing "accussatory" about it. Just stating what it is. It is up to each to determine for their own if it is with merit, or not.

 

[shrundowr]

Read edit. I kinda restated what I originally meant, in a less rude manner.

 

[punt59]

Ok, I read the edit *grin*

First, releasing or not is all about control. Again, there is no value judgement in that, just a statement (for it is effectively controlling information, the code).

Second, for some shard owners, perhaps the capabilities of Razor/Playuo is consider cheating all ready? I am not asking you to agree it is, just the fact is that many may consider what is cheating to be different. Clearly, the developers of tools, do not feel what they do is cheating. But believe others may use it to go beyond that definition. How is that prevented or hindered? by "controlling" information. Basically that is what is being done. Again, no value judgement, just what is being done in the simpliest form.

Third, you assume that everyone uses ConnectUO? If I was in an accussatory mode, I could claim that is forcing even more control, it that now, if one doesn't want to allow such features, one is "forced" to use that service, versus others. Again, I am not, but use it as an example.

I think we are starting at different points, and therefore perahps we have some misunderstandings.
1. I am not assuming that there is an agreed to what is cheating or not. In the gross sense, perhaps, but there is lines of disagreement (and I have seen some of that on Razor before, as well as Playuo). That is not unique to these tools, but any tool that provides some capability is subject to that.

2. I consider source information. So if you are not using that definition, understand it is what I am using for my discusison. Therefore, not releasing source, is a form of control (not questioning either way the motive behind it)

So utlimately, it is a control information. Good or bad, I will leave for each to determine. If you think it prevents cheating, then it is good (but still control). I dont assume control is bad (or good, which you seem to , based on what Ihave inferred by your post). so perhaps that is the other difference we have in definitions.

 

[Courageous]

Well I think it's certainly about "control," just that one shouldn't read a perjorative intent into that. Clearly they want to control who has access to a tool that they perceive as enablement for cheating. This is a fine short term optimization, but a bad long term one in my mind.

In the longer term scheme of things, if protocol hacking, client side tricks, and what not make for a good cheat, the community needs to move to some point where those things don't work so well. I.e., good server side logic to prevent them. Meanwhile, I think there is a lot, I don't know, lost community utility by having PlayUO sit idle.

C//

 

[Ryan]

PlayUO is not dead.

Large portions of PlayUO are being rewritten.

Thanks.

 

[krrios]

I've discussed this in some depth with punt in the past. Anyway, here are my feelings on the matter.

First, I do not believe in security through obscurity. It is inherently fallible. Still, I have no plans to open or share PlayUO source (and, quite possibly, it will even be obfuscated in the future). Certainly these two conflict, and I understand that. As Courageous mentions, this strategy will fail in the long term.

But, I fear failure is inevitable, and here's why: Ultima, as we know it, is inherently vulnerable. Courageous mentions server-side protection against such exploits. Unfortunately, it's not that simple. RunUO already is very secure against many different types of abuse, but there are some things which cannot be fixed without fundamentally changing what Ultima is.

This brings up two problems for me.

The first one is somewhat selfish: I love Ultima--specifically, as it was some years ago. One of the inherently insecure parts of that, however, is that its combat system is fundamentally based on timing. I've seen first-hand numerous scripts, plugins, and even simple macros that ruin the spirit of the game. The only way to deal with these is from an administrative standpoint, and that is exhaustive and prone to err. Providing a fully-functional open client is a honeypot for that exploitation.

Consequently, the emergence of such a client would quite certainly push that envolope, leading us to the next point. As punt correctly notes, everyone has their own opinion on cheating. Conversely, everyone also their own opinion on what should be allowed--and how their shard should be played. It is my belief that an open client will end up closing many of those doors.


Having spent years operating a large freeshard--that's not something I want to see happen.
Having spent years developing RunUO and seeing its community blossom and so many other freeshards spring up--that's not something I want to see happen.
Having spent years playing, and loving, Ultima--that's not something I want to see happen.

Finally, being responsible for PlayUO--that's not something I will help make happen.


While I fully understand that my reasons are selfish, and that they are ultimately futile, I can't bring myself to open those doors.

 

[Courageous]

This is an interesting insight about timing, and the fundamental nature of UO, in particular because it's totally true. Some of the funnest parts of my early UO experience involved a sort of "mastery of the click" that in today's world are killjoyed by things like autotargeters. I recall some fun times where 20 people attempted to kill me, but failed, due to my quickness with various commands, clicks, and tricks.

To defeat this, UO would have to change in some way where the user's own "click time" is really irrelevant. And that wouldn't really be UO.

I've never tried them, but I understand PlayUO to currently possess some of these features (e.g., autotargeting). When I say that I believe that PlayUO should be a vital community thing, I refer to none of those things. I refer the the fast, community owned client, that is not particularly slaved to OSI or their protocol. I refer to the possibility of pairwise runuo-playuo protocol, and the possibilities that such offers, and so forht.

I like the idea of a thriving community client, like runuo is a server, somehow where the cheat elements aren't there. Maybe that's not a realistic desire, but I think it's a fundamentally good desire.

Open source is somewhat tangental to this, actually. It's a possible instrument, a possible means to an ends, not really an objective.

C//

 

[punt59]

Krrios,
Since you agree that many also disagree/agree on what should be allowed, then why not have a documented way to detect playuo, so that a shard operator can decided if its capabilities are what they want to allow?

Seems like that would be consistent with your statement.

 

[Dipset]

Krrios,
Since you agree that many also disagree/agree on what should be allowed, then why not have a documented way to detect playuo, so that a shard operator can decided if its capabilities are what they want to allow?

Seems like that would be consistent with your statement.

If he did that then there would be people who would then know how to bypass the detection. =[

 

[jairon]

krrios, I respect your decision and mostly understand your reasons for wanting to remain closed source... especially with regard to the twitch aspect. However, assuming PlayUO is still under active development, it would be great if the graphics/display section of the code could be opened up for someone to port to sdl... at which point, a mono build could be achieved with your control over the build. Mono is coming along at an amazing rate and to ignore the new cross platform door C# now has open to it seems a shame. Thank you for taking the time to reply.

 

[wejgomi]

revive !!

I WANT MY KRRIOS CLIENT, AND I WANT IT NOW !!!

 

[St George]

Large portions of PlayUO are being rewritten.

Has speed been a consideration? With no or less managed code maybe? Many people would like that.

 

[Naz]

Some kind of update would be real nice.

 

[Kitemmuo]

yes but... when they will be?

 

[Naz]

When they first blocked it, They said that they will release a new client within 10 weeks. It's been like 7months now

 

[shrundowr]

When they first blocked it, They said that they will release a new client within 10 weeks. It's been like 7months now

You are dealing with free software, when you aren't paying for a product, you have no right to expect deadlines to be followed.