[QUOTE=LedZepp;39894688]IMO either the prop damage all together was removed or if it hits a player and the dmg is crush then fade the prop so it just goes through the player then when it no longer is inside the player after the dmg_crush then "re-enable" the prop. Rather than check for the player that is prop killing.[/QUOTE]
or reverse the velocity of the prop for the lulz
[QUOTE=SashaWolf;39892947]I find this example and a lot of your other ones kind of irrelevant in practice because some of them have a very small chance of being done arbitrarily. For the sake of disproving your "proof", however, Ill keep on trying to answer the situations you use to prove it. [/QUOTE]
I already addressed this.
[QUOTE=FPtje;39806678]
Your idea is that you can generally trust the script in most cases. This misplaced trust is EXACTLY what will fuck any server up running it. Too many people know how to abuse it. Any server running these scripts WILL have innocent players banned.
Let me back that last statement up with a mathematical fact.
There is a chance that your script gives the wrong answer. How small this chance is doesn't even matter for the evidence. [b]You can argue yourself silly about how small the chance is, but until there is NO chance, this proof remains valid. [/b]
[u]The chance of event x happening approaches 1 as time increases. [/u] It's the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem]infinite monkey theorem[/url], or at least its abstract.
There's a chance of your script being wrong. Call this "event x".
Servers running this script run indefinitely.
This theorem mathematically proves, that the longer the server runs, the chance that your script points at the wrong player as the prop killer increases. Your script [b]will[/b] be wrong and can therefore [b]never[/b] be trusted. [b]Any[/b] ban based on the script alone has a chance of having someone innocent banned. The theorem applies here too. Innocent people [b]will[/b] get banned as the bans relying on the script increase.
[/QUOTE]
Besides, the situations I give are [u]templates[/u]. These situations can spawn [b]countless[/b] more situations similar to it that have the same effect, which is a wrong output from the script.
[QUOTE=SashaWolf;39892947]
Do note, however, that I think admins should check the logs and view the events that occurred in order to correctly assess who is at fault. Look at time the prop was spawned and compare it to time of initial collision, velocity gained after collision, maybe even log the last X seconds of every moving prop on the server's paths and make a script to play back the props' paths in the tree of the propkill event (or even all of them) on the admin's screen. EDIT: Emphasis on that last idea. That could solve a lot of problems. [/QUOTE]
Of all your ideas, only the last one seems reasonable. My evidence proves that the collision information, owner etc. (see premise) are not sufficient to accurately point at the prop killer. This means an admin looking at the logs won't have enough information either.
However, if you make a playback, and have the admin look at the actual situation (not in console, but actually in game), the story is different. The admin can see the intent of the players. This intent cannot be captured by Lua. This contradicts the premise, and therefore bypasses the evidence.
I believe human eyes can accurately identify the prop killer. Spectating is one way, but recording the situation and showing the admin is another. However, the playback info should not only be printed in console, the admin actually has to see the situation.
[QUOTE=SashaWolf;39892947]
Anyway, here is how such a system I would propose (that would obviously need to be refined while it is in development) could counter your problem.
1. Player A's prop X is registered as moving. It has not stopped moving nor has been physgunned or gravgunned or grabbed by a player, so it can be flagged as not having been interfered with by a player.
2. At this point the collision occurs. The first thing to check here would be whether or not the prop gains signifigant velocity off of the collision. I highly doubt anyone is thrusting props in a direction facing people or in a manner in which the prop is going to give something a lot of velocity, so you can safely say that if the prop gains a lot of velocity, then Player B was misusing props or irrisponsibly using props and should be watched by an admin to verify that he is in the server to cause trouble. Most serious propkillers are going to be repeat offenders, so their name should come up as being involved later. If you have a problem with assuming that the player giving the prop a lot more velocity is at fault, then you could always limit the prop speed (forgot the cvar) and not have to worry about it as much.
[/QUOTE]
Your idea too, is not fully correct. It seems as though you have this insight yourself: by saying "I highly doubt" and "should be watched by an admin". Chances are that player B [b]is[/b] innocent, but worse than that, chances are that a player C finds a way to give player B the blame for his prop kill. One way to do this (of many) would be a wire forcer.
The last sentence doesn't make sense to me. Limiting the speed isn't going to change anything about your assumpation. Like I said, props don't need speed to kill. You haven't defined "a lot", and you'll have to use some arbitrary border to do so.
[QUOTE=SashaWolf;39892947]
Firstly, if I didn't say tree back in my original idea, that is what I meant.
Even though the intent of the player was to prevent being propkilled, he still DID propkill someone by reflecting the prop (making him the cause of the propkill). What that player should have done in practice is get propkilled and let the propkill detection system do it's job.
[/QUOTE]
The problem is NOT that player B gets printed. That's a good thing.
The problem is that player A does [b]not[/b] get printed while he is obviously involved.
[QUOTE=SashaWolf;39892947]
Also, does your "proof" only take effect when normal physics are on, or could we toss a prevention system into the mix as well?
[/QUOTE]
sure, toss a prevention system in the mix. Make the script as complicated as you like. The worst thing you might do is make the situations in which it will fail more difficult to describe. Unless of course you have a way that contradicts with the premise of my evidence.
[QUOTE=SashaWolf;39892947]
Please poke more holes in my idea, it helps refine it.[/QUOTE]
I actually like this attitude. It's how peer review works, kind of.
Personally I think situation one would be impossible to tell who was he prop killer even if an admin was Watching the whole time, the player holding the prop could say that he didn't do it intentionally, or even he was trying to protect the player from the falling prop and there would be no real proof supporting either side.
If you we're going to implement a script like mine, you'd also need to implement some rules that would govern who is right and wrong in these cases. For example adding rules such as "don't interfere with other's prop's movements" this way the person who was holding the prop would be in the wrong and in the case 2 where the player tried to defend himself with a prop would violate the rule making the prop pusher unpunished.
Excuse the typos, I wrote this on a iPod.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
