Add (OPTIONAL) Razor ID Packet

[tophyr]

Zippy,

First off, let me say fantastic work on by far the best UO server and assistant program around. Seriously, I am impressed.

I'm writing to ask you a favor. The staff on the shard I develop for is a little uncomfortable with some of the new features that are being added in to Razor. We still think it as a whole is great, but we're worried that our vision of what UO is meant to be is simply different than yours. We'd like to continue allowing our players to use Razor, since its benefits far outweigh the parts we don't like, but it really would be nice for there to be a way for shard administrators to communicate with the client and set what options can and cannot be used.

What I'm asking you to consider is a handshake system, that would be *totally optional* for the client. When the user connects to the shard, alongside "Patch OSI Encryption" and such there'd be an option, "Respond to Feature Handshake". Upon connection the server would send a packet A describing the features allowed by the shard administrators. If Respond is checked, then Razor would disable the features that aren't allowed on the server and then respond with packet B saying "I am Razor v.29, features acknowledged" etc.

It'd be important to have this whole process be optional for the user, because if they want to play on OSI shards then the user needs to be able to disable the handshake, lest Razor be detected. However for PRS's that want to limit the functionality of Razor but still let players use it, the handshake would ensure fairness. Having the server directly proscribe the features allowed instead of the features disallowed allows for better growth in the future - if the server sent the features disallowed then the server code would have to be changed with each new Razor release.

Please consider this request seriously. I know the Razor team is very dedicated to preventing cheating and I think this modification would go a long ways toward accommodating everyone - shards that like the changes wouldn't have to worry about the handshake, shards that don't like certain features would have a way to handle them, and OSI still wouldn't be able to detect Razor.

[Zippy]

Sorry, this is impossible.

If Razor willingly responds to such a request, the server then KNOWs razor is present, and can completely block it if they want to. If the user has the option to allow razor to respond or not, then this is totally useless--why would users choose to limit the functionality of the program when there is no reason for them to do so? They could just as easily willingly not use features deemed unfair by the staff.

Basically, I refuse to allow shards to block Razor.

I would *consider* allowing shards to request that certain Razor features be disabled... but this serves little purpose. For the same reason that I can't just remove these features from Razor--there is no reason why people won't simply continue using older versions.

[tophyr]

The optional bit would be for those shards that didn't want to limit the features or didn't care whether their limits were followed. A shard that wanted all their players on the same playing level could require the response packet and send the player a gump saying in effect "Please set Razor to handshake with the server."

Having shards block razor wouldn't happen - if anything, shards that wanted to limit some of the features would actually require Razor, because there'd be no way to tell a UOG-only player from a player just not responding with Razor.

Same with the older version bit - shards that required the response packet would require their players to use a Razor version that could respond.

[Zippy]

And if I don't want razor on my shard, all I have to do is wait for the razor packet and then ban you.

And if you don't think that would happen, you're being nieve... after all, thats basically what you're saying isn't it? In your opinion it's going to get to a point where you're not going to want people to use razor anymore, and you're going to start banning those people.

[tophyr]

Not at all, that's exactly what I'm trying to prevent. A shard that wants to enforce a certain "Razor ruleset" would just freeze the player until their Razor responds. If a shard theoretically hated every single feature that Razor implemented, it could just disallow every one of them, and then it would know for sure that none of its players were breaking their rules. I doubt that's the case with any of the shards that disallow Razor, frankly though - they probably just don't like certain features. With this, they could turn those features off and allow their players to use an awesome convenience tool.

Basically, if this packet existed, the consequences would be that any shard that wanted to limit razor in any way would end up requiring it. Which in itself might be an inconvenience, but I'd rather connect with Razor alone than with UOG any day - much quicker.

[tophyr]

Razor allows players to do everything the client can do and more. The client alone cannot make dungeons light - Razor can. The client alone cannot loop macros - Razor can. The client alone cannot determine whether you should cast Heal, GH or Cure - Razor can. These are some of the functions that potential shard owners might want to turn off. (For the record I'm ok with them - iffy on Heal/Cure Self but I don't think I'd turn it off.)

And, frankly, I sincerely hope I can change his mind, because I know (not just trust) that he really is committed to not making a cheat program. However, "cheating" is defined by the rules of the server, it is not a singular standard that applies to all shards and games. Alexandria, for example, allows EasyUO use for anything you can think of. On many shards (including mine), that'd be cheating. Now, I'm very thankful that Zippy has resisted efforts to broaden Razor's macroing system into something as powerful as EUO, but the possibility always exists when there are two separate groups in charge (ie Zippy controlling what the client can do and shard staff controlling what's allowed) that they could begin to have conflicting goals. If Razor had a way to talk to a RunUO server and find out what's allowed and what's not, it would go a long ways toward allowing shard administrators to truly enforce what is and is not allowed on their server. It would go a long way toward preventing cheating.

[Irian]

Personally, I would like to be able to diable Razor. It's not intended to be a cheat tool - I hope - but it's slowly becoming one. Why not let the shard owners decide, if the features are suitable for their shard? Why force them to play "Razor style"?

[fraterx]

stop being such little bitches. Razor never has been and clearly never will be intended to be a cheat program. there are SCORES of other programs out there built specifically for exploiting the game, go be pests on their message boards.

Zippy's vision of a tool to help people do things easier has been clear from the start...he's always said he wasn't making Razor to be a cheating tool.

As a matter of fact, i know Zippy has done a lot to thwart cheating, and has contributed to the security of RunUO overall.

[tophyr]

Originally Posted by Phantom

The problem with adding the feature idea, is people use Razor with Sphere which wouldn't have this support, and would thus blacklist the 3 people that use Razor on a Sphere shard.

It wouldn't affect the Sphere players at all - the Sphereserver wouldn't send the handshake packet to the client in the first place. Remember, the whole point of this handshake process is that it'd be initiated by the server. Sphere servers and OSI servers wouldn't send out the packet and so Razor wouldn't respond, even if it were set to.

Think of it basically as a player signing a waiver to play a sport. If the team doesn't give the player something to sign, then the player won't bind himself into any agreement (OSI/Sphereserver not initiating handshake). If the team does give the player something but doesn't require him to sign it, then the player can choose whether or not he wants to bind himself (Servers that send the handshake packet but don't freeze the player or otherwise require a response). If the team gives him a paper and says sign it before you can play, then the player must agree to bide by the team's rules. (Servers that initiate handshake and freeze the player until the process is complete)

Originally Posted by Phantom

The client can loop through macros, clear evidence is a program called UO LOOP that ONLY repeats a macro within the game that you set. You could keep pressing the macro, every 5 seconds, and it would do exactly the samething.

Um, well, sorry to be a little condescending here, champ, but you just broke your own point. The client doesn't loop the macro, UOLoop does. I didn't say that it's impossible to macro continuously without Razor (hell, I did it with a weight on a spacebar on OSI), but the client itself does not offer in its Macro system a command or option "Loop".

I'm not trying to knock Razor and I'm not worried about Zippy turning it into a blatant cheat/hack tool. I've seen plenty enough evidence that he's strongly committed to prevent that. I just want to bring up the point that it's the shard administrators that determine what is and is not cheating on their own shard, and it'd be spectacular if they had a way to regulate what Razor allowed their players to do.

I've tried to avoid saying it because it's a bit blunt and exaggerated, but frankly, if Razor allows players to do something that is against the rules on a particular shard, then on that shard, Razor is a cheat tool.

[Irian]

Perhaps it's not totaly clear, but what "cheating" IS depends on the style of the shard. We're running an RP-Shard an macroing IS cheating here, for example, as is changing the light level. Of course, this is a question of definition, but because it is, the shard owners should be able to decide, if they want Razor or not.

[Zippy]

I'll consider it. But I consider a lot of things, don't get your hopes up.

Also this is a lot of extra work for me which is asking me to LIMIT the abilities of something I made. Also, this type of thing often encourages people to try to circumvent things, which I tend also not to like. So we'll just have to wait and see.

[tophyr]

Thank you

Also, (I know that this is probably a common proposition for you) if the amount of work is an issue, I'm more than willing and extremely capable of helping you out. I recognize that sourcecode protection is probably a big deal for you and that you probably wouldn't trust me based on just my hundred-odd posts here, but if there's anything I can do to help, then count me in.

[tophyr]

bump.

msg length > 10.

[MatrixMan]

Well me personally i havent tried the new one yet but ive downloaded it wanted to wait and see if alot of bugs is reported. I love razor (u go boy). Razor msmokes andything and everything about uoassit it does all thesame thngs and a few more and is so much more user friendly. If someone doesnt like it on their shard then they need to just diable it in thier shard gateway settings and leave the rest of us alone. dont mess up a nice tool for the rest of us, probally at least 80 % love every feature of it

P.S. dont fix what isnt broken

[Eggit]

You do realize you don't HAVE to log in through UO:G right?