95 replies to this topic

[Bilbo]

GreenHell, on 01 December 2015 - 05:42 PM, said:

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.

Well, one of them will at least. Best practice would still be to make potential problems visible to support and if that gets no attention....start a threadnaught.

[M T]

was that the MaxCompView something?

[Aresye]

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

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

Feels like a cliffhanger, doesn't it?

As much as I really don't want to, I have to give you SOME props for that other thread. If it wasn't for you being so stubbornly unreasonable, we wouldn't have discovered the unlocked wallhack, and who really knows how long players may have been using that? It may not have been combat worthy for the majority of games, but I'm sure a scout mech in league play could theoretically use it to their advantage.

It also makes it that much more embarrassing for those 65 players that got banned for using that aimbot/wallhack combo. Turns out they didn't have to spend real money on a program. The real wallhack was in user.cfg, LOL!

[Mystere]

Aresye Kerensky, on 01 December 2015 - 07:12 PM, said:

As much as I really don't want to, I have to give you SOME props for that other thread. If it wasn't for you being so stubbornly unreasonable, we wouldn't have discovered the unlocked wallhack ...

Hey! Hey! Hey! Let's not go overboard here.

[dario03]

Aresye Kerensky, on 01 December 2015 - 07:12 PM, said:

Feels like a cliffhanger, doesn't it?

As much as I really don't want to, I have to give you SOME props for that other thread. If it wasn't for you being so stubbornly unreasonable, we wouldn't have discovered the unlocked wallhack, and who really knows how long players may have been using that? It may not have been combat worthy for the majority of games, but I'm sure a scout mech in league play could theoretically use it to their advantage.

It also makes it that much more embarrassing for those 65 players that got banned for using that aimbot/wallhack combo. Turns out they didn't have to spend real money on a program. The real wallhack was in user.cfg, LOL!

Actually... if that thread was still around you would see that somebody explained how to this pretty early in the thread. No screenshots but a description and the cvar line and value was posted. So technically....you still didn't really need 30+ pages. Basically a lot of this stuff isn't new...its just a lot of people didn't know about it or didn't care. Think of it as the MWO forums version of lostech

(Assuming this was the command I'm thinking of)

Edited by dario03, 01 December 2015 - 09:40 PM.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

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.

Then why's there a hotfix coming to lock something out again?

Bilbo, on 01 December 2015 - 05:55 PM, said:

Well, one of them will at least. Best practice would still be to make potential problems visible to support and if that gets no attention....start a threadnaught.

as usual...

[MechWarrior3671771]

" I have to give you SOME props for that other thread. If it wasn't for you being so stubbornly unreasonable, we wouldn't have discovered the unlocked wallhack"

<shrug> What was unreasonable was your crowd arguing that ANY edit to user.cfg was allowed and couldn't possibly be an exploit because the devs had locked down all remaining edits that were problematic.

Not only was that point unsourced (ie. not an official PGI post by devs as people claimed, but second-hand info from a volunteer forum moderator) it was also wrong, as proven by the wallhack edit to user.cfg that was still possible.

Whatever. I've taken your measure (exploit-defenders) and so I don't really care for your props, keep them. But the least you guys could do is admit you were wrong, something like "yah you were right - the user.cfg can be abused, but you're still a jerk"

Or just keep trying to spin it here. I find that amusing as well.

[TKSax]

Fen Tetsudo, on 02 December 2015 - 10:20 AM, said:

" I have to give you SOME props for that other thread. If it wasn't for you being so stubbornly unreasonable, we wouldn't have discovered the unlocked wallhack"

<shrug> What was unreasonable was your crowd arguing that ANY edit to user.cfg was allowed and couldn't possibly be an exploit because the devs had locked down all remaining edits that were problematic.

Not only was that point unsourced (ie. not an official PGI post by devs as people claimed, but second-hand info from a volunteer forum moderator) it was also wrong, as proven by the wallhack edit to user.cfg that was still possible.

Whatever. I've taken your measure (exploit-defenders) and so I don't really care for your props, keep them. But the least you guys could do is admit you were wrong, something like "yah you were right - the user.cfg can be abused, but you're still a jerk"

Or just keep trying to spin it here. I find that amusing as well.

Actually as you found out from support you were wrong and any edit is allowed, but I agree that does not mean it could not be abused, I never said it could not. I tweeted this one to Russ and Support as it Was obviously a Wall hack so a Violation of the ToS. If you have such a problem with the r_Glow=0 edit then you should have could have done the same. Instaed you continued to argue from the wrong point of view that no edit was allowed in the user.cfg, and that r_glow was an exploit.

Edited by TKSax, 02 December 2015 - 02:13 PM.

[MechWarrior3671771]

228 already contacted Russ about r_glow being an exploit that needed removal. And I don't do twitter.

"Instaed you continued to argue from the wrong point of view that not edit was not allowed in the user.cfg,"

What? That sentence is mangled beyond understanding. What I argued was that while most edits to user.cfg are fine, there are exceptions that are not allowed, which is why the FAQ uses the term "edits made in good faith" as a disclaimer.

Your side tried to say that it was impossible to create exploits through the user.cfg because the devs had cleaned it up. That's now obviously false, even though you still refuse to admit it.

That's fine though. My mistake was assuming you guys had integrity. Lesson learned.

[Dagorlad13]

PGI, please ban anyone who used this exploit.

If PGI would just add any settings that they want us to edit to the in-game options menu and lock the .cfg file, then these things would not happen. Stop being lazy and do this already.

[TKSax]

Fen Tetsudo, on 02 December 2015 - 11:36 AM, said:

Your side tried to say that it was impossible to create exploits through the user.cfg because the devs had cleaned it up. That's now obviously false, even though you still refuse to admit it.

That's fine though. My mistake was assuming you guys had integrity. Lesson learned.

Always with the insults... You could have contacted support, that's what I did as well as tweet Russ.

No one ever said it was impossible, however as you saw from support, user.cfg changes will not result in moderation, they will remove them at will,. The command itself is not an exploit, the problem is PGI left variables of the command be set so low it resulted a Wall Hack which is Exploit, because it was something that people had been banned for before and Wall Hacks are explicitly pointed out as something you should not do. So if you were using the command so it would not draw objects beyond visual range you could see mechs to get better performance that would not be an exploit, but obviously if you set it to 0 or something that removes most of the objects and becomes a wall hack that is an exploit.


We all know obvious exploits when we see one, I saw this command tested it an e-mail support and Russ to get it removed I assume I was not they only one. You have done nothing about something you think is an exploit except continue to throw insults around at people who disagree with you. If you think 1 tweet, well actually 2 BattleBunny Tweet'd something about r_glow also, is going to get something changed with out any other support your probably mistaken.


Aresey is right though some good things have come out of this, and cvar was locked that could cause a wall hack, and more official confirmation's were given that all editing of the user.cfg is OK and will not result in moderation.

[Haakon Magnusson]

Bilbo, on 01 December 2015 - 05:55 PM, said:

Well, one of them will at least. Best practice would still be to make potential problems visible to support and if that gets no attention....start a threadnaught.

Indeed, pgi gets kudos for quick verification and fix.

So while they might not have spotted all option exploits, it definitely is worth it to call attention to ones which might need attention.

[Appogee]

May I just say to those who were adjusting that Cvar to use it as a wallhack... you utterly pathetic lamers.

Edited by Appogee, 02 December 2015 - 02:59 PM.

[MechWarrior3671771]

"No one ever said it was impossible"

Yah they did. For like 15 pages they said it couldn't possibly be an exploit because the devs had removed anything that could be edited to create an exploit. Now we know that was false.

"however as you saw from support, user.cfg changes will not result in moderation, they will remove them at will. The command itself is not an exploit, the problem is PGI left variables of the command be set so low it resulted a Wall Hack which is Exploit"

Love the pretzel logic here - its not the player's fault for creating exploits, it's PGI's for letting them. Again with the lack of integrity and personal responsibility.

You are also reading the statement from support wrong - what it says is that players won't face administrative action for editing user.cfg to create an exploit, PGI will simply remove the exploit instead. I look forward to your explanation of how user.cfg exploits are allowed because PGI removes them...

"...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." - Bobby Jubraj, Technical Support Representative Piranha Games

Edited by Fen Tetsudo, 02 December 2015 - 03:02 PM.

[dario03]

Appogee, on 02 December 2015 - 02:28 PM, said:

May I just say to those who were adjusting that Cvar... you utterly pathetic lamers.

Like TK said, the problem wasn't the cvar so much as it was the input range of the cvar. Setting a proper limit for it would fix the issue without needing to completely remove it.

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

dario03, on 02 December 2015 - 02:52 PM, said:

Like TK said, the problem wasn't the cvar so much as it was the input range of the cvar. Setting a proper limit for it would fix the issue without needing to completely remove it.

Is there a cvar that increases max draw distance? It's annoying when the terrain doesn't fully draw and I can see the edge of an enemy mech, shoot at it, but hit the terrain that isn't fully drawn.

[GernMiester]

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

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

If its a function of the engine its been there the whole time.

I have used rglow chnages and fnd that it makes zero difference since I hit exactly where I am aiming anyway but my lasers now look like C R A P.

[Roadkill]

Fen Tetsudo, on 02 December 2015 - 02:50 PM, said:

"No one ever said it was impossible"

Yah they did. For like 15 pages they said it couldn't possibly be an exploit because the devs had removed anything that could be edited to create an exploit. Now we know that was false.

No, actually, we now know that it is true.

Exploiting is a bannable offense. We now have confirmation from PGI that editing user.cfg will not result in being banned or otherwise moderated. Ergo any edit of user.cfg is not an exploit.

So you were wrong all along, and we have confirmation from PGI.

That does NOT mean that there are not unintended modifications still available in user.cfg. In fact this patch proves that there are. But they are NOT exploits because you can get banned for exploiting and PGI has confirmed that you will not be banned for any edit to user.cfg.

My only beef was with your terminology. Your terminology was wrong and PGI has confirmed it.

[MechWarrior3671771]

"Exploiting is a bannable offense. We now have confirmation from PGI that editing user.cfg will not result in being banned or otherwise moderated. Ergo any edit of user.cfg is not an exploit."

That's Bootstrap Logic. PGI is simply saying they won't ban people for exploiting the user.cfg,

Likely because 1) they recognize the FAQ on it is confusing to players re what's allowed or 2) they don't have the time to play Rules Lawyer games with people who will claim with a straight face that editing out screen shake would not be an exploit because the user.cfg allows you to edit it out.

Else, explain why PGI is removing the wall hack edit from user.cfg - you agree that's an exploit right? So how can you say "any edit of user.cfg is not an exploit" ?

Edited by Fen Tetsudo, 02 December 2015 - 03:16 PM.

[Roadkill]

Fen Tetsudo, on 02 December 2015 - 03:14 PM, said:

"Exploiting is a bannable offense. We now have confirmation from PGI that editing user.cfg will not result in being banned or otherwise moderated. Ergo any edit of user.cfg is not an exploit."

That's Bootstrap Logic. PGI is simply saying they won't ban people for exploiting the user.cfg

If exploiting is a bannable offense, and you can't be banned for editing user.cfg, then editing user.cfg is not an exploit.

That's not bootstrap logic. That's not magic space dust logic. It's just logic. That's how logic works.

Quote

Likely because 1) they recognize the FAQ on it is confusing to players re what's allowed or 2) they don't have the time to play Rules Lawyer games with people who will claim with a straight face that editing out screen shake would not be an exploit because the user.cfg allows you to edit it out.

Else, explain why PGI is removing the wall hack edit from user.cfg - you agree that's an exploit right? So how can you say "any edit of user.cfg is not an exploit"?

Just because they remove something doesn't mean it was an exploit. They remove things that players have been doing all the time. Or are you saying that using the +50% cooldown on the Grid Iron was an exploit?

Exploiting is a bannable offense. You won't be banned for editing user.cfg, therefore any edit to user.cfg is not an exploit.

Want to call it a bug? Sure. Want to call it a balance issue? Yeah, okay, it could be that too. But it is not an exploit because you won't be banned for it.