A programme to ensure we are all playing the same game.

[testuseraccount]

How would you guys feel about a programme that acts as a sort of "loader" for UO, but not to allow changes to it, but to prevent changes to it?

Like the opposite of razor, instead of allowing systems to access it, it makes sure that no unauthorized programs can alter the game in any sort of way or perform any sort of actions over it.

It would have to, of course, be made as a requirement to connect to the shard, but could such a thing be accepted by the community as a whole?

This means:
- No more assist programs.
- No more tree hacking/altered game files.
- Completely level playing field.
- The beginnings of a stabilized economy.
- No more "accepted" cheating culture.
- Proper "hand" to "hand"/Mouse to Mouse combat (with more effort).
- Give proper meaning to achivements back (Like GM smith/etc).
- Assertion of proper light levels and atmosphere.

Thanks.

PS: I will make the programme only as long as one person desires it to exist.

[Hemperor]

Derrick in the past has been pretty adamantly opposed to forcing anyone to use anything other than the client to log in.

While I think this would GREATLY reduce (if not eliminate) the AFK millonaire's incomes here, the millions are already out there and there's no stabilising the economy to come.

EDIT: Also, UO is fairly basic, if anyone truly wanted to "hack" another assist program that would fly clear under the monitoring program, I don't imagine it would be too hard.

[testuseraccount]

Just because evil exists doesn't mean you have to continue it, your logic is along the lines of "I give up in life".

You also assume that the monitoring programme wont be updated or made by someone who knows how these programmes work or how to find them.

It can also be made to fight back, so if you start messing with it, it can just bluescreen/freeze your system or delete files.

[Hemperor]

Just because evil exists doesn't mean you have to continue it, your logic is along the lines of "I give up in life".

You also assume that the monitoring programme wont be updated or made by someone who knows how these programmes work or how to find them.

Well, I actually made two points, and the first still stands (and is a fair point).

Secondly, yes, I think a program could stop 99% of people from "cheating" or "assisting", whatever you want to call it. At least, temporarily. If you're capable of making a program to detect EasyUO, Razor, etc then you should also be knowledgable to the fact that UO is a 15 year old tile based game and it's probably one of the easiest MMORPGs to manipulate because of it. What's stopping one guy here from making his own secret program and distributing it to his guildmates only, allowing them to have a superior advantage over others?

[testuseraccount]

I agree, if derrick is against it, then it can't really exist as intended right away. (But that doesn't mean it can't be accepted over time, Razor is accepted, is it not?)

I am pretty sure if such a system were in place and it was hacked, others would notice and report such activity giving the project time to adapt.

It CAN and WILL be made to ensure a "sandbox" virtual environment for the game to exist in, this is very much possible if you are willing to use whatever techniques and force possible.

This means, these things are possible:
- Not allowing IRC/IM/Voice programmes.
- Force closing web browsers.
- Closing keyboard macro programmes (like autohotkey).
- Closing video capture programmes.

We can basically just close all user programmes upon load, and then prevent any new ones other then the accepted UO exe to run (this can be negotiated with Derrick's shard).

In situations like this its all about whitelisting, not blacklisting.

We can also use the loader to check file versions and hash's against a known list of accepted states to prevent file alteration (treehack). This system could be expanded to provide direct updates to the files themselves if need be. Which also means you can access UOSA simply by having the loader and letting it download the files to you (without an installer).

This could also be used to synchronise archive files between installations like your log book or your key-bind or configuration files. Making your account fully portable.

This could later be expanded to provide a p2p update system for UOSA's distribution which would dramatically lower the bandwidth requirements of this site and the cost.

One could even expand the peer connectivity further to check between nodes/persons for differential changes in files on other computers and report it. To further compound the anti-hacking ability.

In time, and with alot of magic and imagination, one could even turn UOSA into a p2p/Cloud shard, which exists on the combined space of everyone's front-ends. <---- Bit of an Airhead dream/fantasy though. [I don't like this one very much]

To be honest, with a system like this; it would make UOSA unhackable, not because people don't want a challenge or that they don't want to hack UO, its just that UOSA is just a 3rd party shard, in reality. Its tiny and insignificant and like you mentioned Hemperor, its an old game; why bother? If there any justification or doubts about making a system like that, its <--this. (Theres no money to be made)

And you know, its ok if people keep everything they have now, money or skill and character wise; because all it means is that everything they have will be "worth" more and they will be given a chance to provide a proper base for the culture of the shard in which to re-assert itself in. I know people will be ok with this, their minds will rest easier in the fact that these people are playing within the same rules as themselves. Whats done is done and can't be undone, but we can turn it into something good

[Kaivan]

What you're proposing would never happen. First off, the kind of 'features' that you're describing in this program are quite literally the same type of functions found in fairly malicious spyware programs. This raises all sorts of legal concerns, not to mention concerns over who would have control over such a program. Additionally, the lockout features you're describing are almost completely nullified by sandboxing the program itself, preventing it from being aware of any other running programs. Finally, the reason that Razor is accepted here is because it is the closest thing that we have to UOAssist. If something that more closely represented UOAssist existed instead, we would allow that program instead. However, we would not, in our wildest dreams, consider a system such as the one you're proposing.

[testuseraccount]

Yes, I am aware; and maybe its time for normal programs to grow the same set of balls that some more ill intended programs have!

There are no legal concerns if all its functionality is clearly stated before the fact in a timely fasion in an agreeable form.

You assume i'd be using some lower lever control schemes, the good point about .Net is that it is a runtime ontop of the native system, meaning you CAN do exactly as I have said with very little lines of code in actuality. Any "sandboxing" is just a side effect of the functions that would be implemented and thus is why it will work.

The only reason why any of these things are accepted is because noone has thought of doing this in a real manner as I have outlined. Otherwise all external programs that assist you in a game are cheating, by the very nature, spirit and rules of a "game" as far as human understanding goes.

I implore you to think of it, for the sake of preservation.

This game has passed, it is dead. Let us give it the best burial it can have, no?

[Kaivan]

Yes, I am aware; and maybe its time for normal programs to grow the same set of balls that some more ill intended programs have!

This is an absolutely ridiculous notion. Reasonable programs should never prevent all other programs from opening. You're suggesting locking a player out from the rest of their computer for the sake of perceived fairness.

There are no legal concerns if all its functionality is clearly stated before the fact in a timely fasion in an agreeable form.

There are huge legal implications for something like this. Throwing an EULA at this (e.g. saying "this is what the program does if you do not agree to these restrictions click cancel") at this doesn't solve any problems. This program would exhibit extreme behavior, preventing you from doing anything while it's open, which goes way beyond any reasonable use of any program and the reach of any EULA.

You assume i'd be using some lower lever control schemes, the good point about .Net is that it is a runtime ontop of the native system, meaning you CAN do exactly as I have said with very little lines of code in actuality. Any "sandboxing" is just a side effect of the functions that would be implemented and thus is why it will work.

You're missing the point of what I said. If you sandbox this theoretical program, you prevent it from doing almost everything that you stated it would do, and it takes no time to set up these preventative measures.

The only reason why any of these things are accepted is because noone has thought of doing this in a real manner as I have outlined. Otherwise all external programs that assist you in a game are cheating, by the very nature, spirit and rules of a "game" as far as human understanding goes.

This is patently false. There is a good reason why companies don't create programs that do this. It's because there is no reasonable, nor legal grounds for which to do it. Also, the notion that any program that can potentially assist you in some way is a cheat is absolutely silly. Just because you can potentially go visit a website to view user generated information or speak with someone over a program, reaping some sort of advantage in-game, doesn't mean that you have cheated in any way. That position implies that communicating with people is tantamount to cheating, and any efforts to brand that behavior as such will not be accepted here.

I implore you to think of it, for the sake of preservation.

This game has passed, it is dead. Let us give it the best burial it can have, no?

There is no way that this sort of system would be condoned by us. It seeks to solve a problem by creating a much larger problem.

[testuseraccount]

How do you sandbox a programme like this? are you serious?

[Kaivan]

There are tons of ways to do it. This is just one of many.

[FishinPro]

Who wants to play where you have to actually double click on potions to drink them...oh how fun pvp would be then!!!

[testuseraccount]

Well, it seems a very specific issue with a very specific fix; I know your desperate to look for ways to turn this around, but this will work as intended. Despite whatever theoretical wrenches you throw at it.

Like I said, it can just be adapted to deal with any of these issues as they arise.

For example: Sandboxie has locks and controls over process objects, right? well its simple, no? If the program can't assert its control over the other programs that means it wont run and if it can't run it wont authorise and load the UO client; which is part of the design paradigm anyways (To sandbox the UO client).

[Kaivan]

No, it can't. Beyond that, none of the other concerns have been addressed either, all of which have no reasonable recourse.

[testuseraccount]

The only other concern is the legal one, and since none of this stuff is legal to begin with, it pretty much fits.
(to be satyrically retrospective)

But in honesty, I think as long as the person knows what they are in for, and we make an effort informing them equal to the problems possibly caused by it, then it is ok.

[Kaivan]

You haven't addressed any of the 3 concerns at all. For one, it is a complete non-sequitur to suggest that communicating with people is cheating, and you haven't provided any argument for that position in the first place. Second, you're confounding the legal right to acquire profit or cause substantial loss of profit to a copyright holder with the legal right to have a program exert a certain level of control over another person's system. These two issues are separate and pointing to the legality of one (which we don't have a problem with on UOSA because we make no profit) does not absolve the other of its legal responsibility. Finally, you haven't addressed the sandbox issue at all, merely claimed that you can get around it, when it has proven to be an effective security measure and is available as part of many security suites (not to mention the fact that you've merely asserted that you can get around a single program, and have disregarded the many sandboxing programs that you cannot get around).