Quote:
Originally Posted by 1337norway
"cutting corners" implies that short cuts are taken to reduce the complexity of code in this situation. Obviously adding more code for separate checks would be the adverse of this. You are right, you never know what will happen in the future with updates. You don't know if they will change the string or introduce new strings which would make both scenarios equal. You'd have to come back and manipulate the program to account for these changes regardless. Adding multiple string checks wouldn't correlate to increased performance overhead in this case as the single longer string check would be even worse. You've made no valid logical statements for why one would be preferred over the other. It's clear you are upset over something here but attacking users on a public forum as an active moderator over disagreeing about programming choices is a bit ridiculous
|
And how come that cutting most of the phase away, before the check, isn't a "short cut" to you?
Kigen's anti cheat were failing after some Valve update in the past, causing false positives and thereby false bans. The lousy administrator of one of the servers where a such thing was happening, and were every single client was being banned, was once unwilling to "delete" the bans completely and remove the "ban history" .
In short words, it would be a matter of minutes to a couple of hours usually, before Google would know about the bans and list your Steam ID as being a previous offender by an anti cheat.
If, as you say, you do it with checking if "VAC" is in the phrase, and they will change it in the future, you will get innocent people banned from your way of doing it.
Using the full phase allows obviously requires future maintenance if that day will ever come, but is a simple phrase change, that will not cause any false positives.
- How would you personally feel, if your Steam profile had incorrect histories (that be, at third party sites), regarding VAC bans that you have never ever had? People may actually act on this!
If there is a reason for the ban, sure, go ahead, ...
Hitting innocents is NOT something I would be proud of, and while I have seen at least 3-4 VAC-related phrases, with only one of them being related to the exact ban, you're definitely going to end up hitting innocent people with your way of doing it.
There is, unfortunately, no ways to distinguish between "personal opinions" and "moderator opinions" form a moderator on any forums out there:
You're clearly misunderstanding my intentions with these messages, as they have never (neither as personal, nor as a moderator) been meant to be "attacking" you (or anyone else), but simply to help any people to make the code right.
__________________