Offline
edited 1×, last 16.03.17 03:04:49 pm
Forum
CS2D General CS2D Remake - Open? Source
CS2D Remake - Open? Source
16 replies
1 
If I were you, I'd only let certain parts be open-source. This way you can still let people work on the game but exclude major core parts from the public eye.
Then again, I have no idea what you would be able to leave open-source.
SQ: It's already fully multiplayer, and uses systems to prevent cheating.@
Yates: That sounds like a nice option but I'm not sure if it's optional to close specific parts of a git repo.I agree with both however that it could potentially be bad for security, but I'll do what I can to prevent security flaws and if I figure out how to close certain parts I will do
dcrew: Just put it in the .gitignore, they will know what files but cannot see the content (because the file/folder isn't tracked). Watch out for sneaky tricks that will make you track the untracked files if people edit the .gitignore.Basically, don't accept any changes to the .gitignore by anyone other than yourself, or always double check.
SQ: Sure, do you mind using our Discord for IM and file sending? Keep in mind that .NET code is super easy to reverse-engineer / decompile so this is still not a very secure/efficient protection at all.
The .gitignore idea doesn't work in a real-world scenario because the files would miss for everyone else then. This means they would be unable to run the game.
You can't develop something without being able to run and test it. Well you can.. but nobody wants to do that because it's stupid and doesn't make much sense. So putting crucial program parts on .gitignore would basically make it impossible for others to work on the game.
Maybe Teeworlds has something against that.
ESP's capabilities can easily be held to a bare minimum: it's just
DC who didn't go great length to restrict it. Brain-dead AIM can be detected server-side as you, @ Yates, proved (and Valve does something in this area too afaik).An external anti-cheat is inevidable anyway, right?
VADemon: Nobody is saying that security through obscurity is good. In some cases however it's the only option. For some client-sided cheats there's no efficient way to prevent or detect them with a server-sided protection algorithm.Of course successful cheat- and hack development is always a matter of effort in the end. Client-sided protections can always be tricked. That's a fact. With and without having the source code. The point is just that it's (probably) easier when having the full source.
kek. Those were the days. I got a load of PM's during that time asking for an unban
dcrew has writtenThe project is decided not to be open-source, rather I will add those I can trust to the repo.
IMHO the most reliable and trustful person here is
DC. Don't get me wrong but there are many idiots in this world who can trick you with "Don't worry, I promise" and get in serious trouble and all shit. You can't always give credibility to the people.Rather keep the source code closed and that is it. Simple. Only you and DC can see it. If people really want to see the code as curiosity then release to the public only tiny and small portions of the code which aren't related with the multiplayer platform system and the like.
But I'm not actively contributing because I'm busy with other things (Stranded III for instance)
DC: no need to do it all by yourself but your contributions can be very interesting and helpful
DC: Counter-Strike 2D does need some optimizations.Also it's already old like I got sick of the way menus look like (grey menus (I am aware you can change the color it in options but it's not enough.))
1