95 replies to this topic

[TKSax]

https://twitter.com/...822598070603776

Russ asked me to deleted the original tweet, but it the now wonderful but gone laser user.cfg thread someone mentioned a cvar that could be editied to let you see through walls, I tweet russ the cvar and asked him about it. They are now hot-fixing it out as they should. Wall hacks are explouts/cheating no if and or buts. I am glad PGI is taking care of this quickly.

This is not the r_glow=0 cvar.

Edited by TKSax, 01 December 2015 - 03:11 PM.

[Bilbo]

TKSax, on 01 December 2015 - 02:53 PM, said:

https://twitter.com/...822598070603776

Russ asked me to deleted the original tweet, but it the now wonderful but gone laser user.cfg thread someone mentioned a cvar that could be editied to let you see through walls, I tweet russ the cvar and asked him about it. They are not hot-fixing it out. If you are using it this in my mind is now consider an exploit.

This is not the r_glow=0 cvar.

One wonders how long it was in the wild. Been there the whole time?

[TKSax]

Bilbo, on 01 December 2015 - 02:56 PM, said:

One wonders how long it was in the wild. Been there the whole time?

I asked but Russ did not respond, however I searched the forums and it never came up except in that thread.

[MechWarrior3671771]

"They are not hot-fixing it out as they should."

Confused here. Did you mean to say "They are not hot-fixing it out as they should" ?

Also, did Russ say anything pro/con about the r_glow cvar?

Edited by Fen Tetsudo, 01 December 2015 - 03:05 PM.

[Bilbo]

TKSax, on 01 December 2015 - 03:02 PM, said:

I asked but Russ did not respond, however I searched the forums and it never came up except in that thread.

Well that is something I guess. Of course, if they removed the posts/threads every time it comes up you wont find them anyway.

[TKSax]

Fen Tetsudo, on 01 December 2015 - 03:03 PM, said:

"They are not hot-fixing it out as they should."

Confused here. Did you mean to say "They are not hot-fixing it out as they should" ?

Also, did Russ say anything pro/con about the r_glow cvar?

Yes I meant to say, They are now hot-fixing this as they should. So hotfix is incoming.


Nope I only tweet him about that cvar since it was an obvious wallhack and therefore against the TOS.

Edited by TKSax, 01 December 2015 - 03:15 PM.

[dario03]

I wonder if they are completely removing it or just changing the range you can put in. If its the cvar I'm thinking of then it was only a problem because you could put such a low number in.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

TKSax, on 01 December 2015 - 02:53 PM, said:

https://twitter.com/...822598070603776

Russ asked me to deleted the original tweet, but it the now wonderful but gone laser user.cfg thread someone mentioned a cvar that could be editied to let you see through walls, I tweet russ the cvar and asked him about it. They are now hot-fixing it out as they should. Wall hacks are explouts/cheating no if and or buts. I am glad PGI is taking care of this quickly.

This is not the r_glow=0 cvar.

they should just lock user.cfg and be done with it imo

[TKSax]

dario03, on 01 December 2015 - 03:14 PM, said:

I wonder if they are completely removing it or just changing the range you can put in. If its the cvar I'm thinking of then it was only a problem because you could put such a low number in.

I tested it in the training grounds, it was pretty awe-full to play with, but you could get used to it, on some maps, on frozen nothing rendered but the snow until you got up close.

[KHETTI]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 01 December 2015 - 03:16 PM, said:

they should just lock user.cfg and be done with it imo

I think its safe to say it will happen eventually.

[TKSax]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 01 December 2015 - 03:16 PM, said:

they should just lock user.cfg and be done with it imo

I would not have a problem with that, however Then need more video options in game before they do that if they want to keep the same wide range of computers that can play mwo.

[dario03]

TKSax, on 01 December 2015 - 03:17 PM, said:

I tested it in the training grounds, it was pretty awe-full to play with, but you could get used to it, on some maps, on frozen nothing rendered but the snow until you got up close.

You're talking about a cvar that was range based and not on/off right?

[TKSax]

dario03, on 01 December 2015 - 03:19 PM, said:

You're talking about a cvar that was range based and not on/off right?

I did not test it that much, just set it to zero and saw the results....

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

TKSax, on 01 December 2015 - 03:18 PM, said:

I would not have a problem with that, however Then need more video options in game before they do that if they want to keep the same wide range of computers that can play mwo.

The computer I play on is six years old at least. If the computer cant play this game minus by tweaking the user .cfg (which I DONT do mind you) then thats the onus on the user to get a better rig. Im sorry but game security trumps this.

If I can run this thing on a pc that old, without those tweaks....

[dario03]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 01 December 2015 - 03:34 PM, said:

The computer I play on is six years old at least. If the computer cant play this game minus by tweaking the user .cfg (which I DONT do mind you) then thats the onus on the user to get a better rig. Im sorry but game security trumps this.

If I can run this thing on a pc that old, without those tweaks....

Its been discussed many times, this game simply does not run as well as it should on some hardware. There is no way I should be getting less than 60fps at any time in this game with my settings and my computer but yet I do. Getting the game to run is no problem, getting it to run 60fps+ constantly sometimes is.

[AEgg]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 01 December 2015 - 03:34 PM, said:

The computer I play on is six years old at least. If the computer cant play this game minus by tweaking the user .cfg (which I DONT do mind you) then thats the onus on the user to get a better rig. Im sorry but game security trumps this.

If I can run this thing on a pc that old, without those tweaks....

The thing about a .cfg or .ini file is that all settings in it have already gone past the devs and thus aren't game security issues. Typically, config files are used for the stuff that is either too technically complex, too detailed, or not worth the effort to put into the UI.

If anything available in it does grant a significant advantage, then it's on them to fix it or remove it.

A lot like how forcing AA through the driver on an ATI card used to make everything in the game transparent (this included mechs, so it wasn't at all useful, just unplayable).

Preventing edits to the cfg file is effectively identical to locking graphics settings (as all graphics settings are typically available in the config file anyway). And nobody wants that. Either max or min graphics are always going to be slightly easier to read things in, there's nothing anyone can do about that. The only way around it is making them look the same, in which case, they'll perform the same, too.

[Ultimax]

AEgg, on 01 December 2015 - 04:20 PM, said:

The thing about a .cfg or .ini file is that all settings in it have already gone past the devs and thus aren't game security issues. Typically, config files are used for the stuff that is either too technically complex, too detailed, or not worth the effort to put into the UI.

If anything available in it does grant a significant advantage, then it's on them to fix it or remove it.

A lot like how forcing AA through the driver on an ATI card used to make everything in the game transparent (this included mechs, so it wasn't at all useful, just unplayable).

Preventing edits to the cfg file is effectively identical to locking graphics settings (as all graphics settings are typically available in the config file anyway). And nobody wants that. Either max or min graphics are always going to be slightly easier to read things in, there's nothing anyone can do about that. The only way around it is making them look the same, in which case, they'll perform the same, too.

Sometimes it feels like trying to explain electricity to superstitious cave-people.

[MechWarrior3671771]

"The thing about a .cfg or .ini file is that all settings in it have already gone past the devs and thus aren't game security issues"

Huh? I don't understand how you can say this with a straight face while, as we speak, the devs are hotfixing a .cfg file edit exploit they did not know about or anticipate.

Edited by Fen Tetsudo, 01 December 2015 - 05:15 PM.

[Bilbo]

Fen Tetsudo, on 01 December 2015 - 05:14 PM, said:

"The thing about a .cfg or .ini file is that all settings in it have already gone past the devs and thus aren't game security issues"

Huh? I don't understand how you can say this with a straight face while, as we speak, the devs are hotfixing a .cfg file edit exploit they did not know about or anticipate.

There are only so many tests and people that conduct those tests. Things will always get by them. I have been playing since closed beta and I had never heard of the variable or the effects until today. In the end, the player base of any game made by anyone will find a way to make the devs look inept.

[GreenHell]

I have the official word from PGI about user.cfg file edits. I emailed them about the issue and this is the response I got:

----------------------------------------------------------------

While modification of the user.cfg is not encouraged due to potential issues with troubleshooting if you run into technical problems down the road, modification of the user.cfg will not result in any moderation action. If we discover a command in the config that negatively effects overall gameplay and balance, we may simply choose to remove the functionality for that command in the future.

Thanks,

Bobby Jubraj
Technical Support Representative
Piranha Games

----------------------------------------------------------------

So yeah, sounds like user.cfg edits are ok, and any that they don't like will get removed.