Then don't bother defeating them, just desync.

Yeah, you're supposed to drop them before you issue a defeat trigger. That's because triggers don't run for players who have had defeat//victory.

It drops instantly, also I hope you just crossed everything out because you'll get to it later, I'd like to hear more about the leaderboard method if possible.


This does not prevent the problem that if another player has their screen at that location when you ban someone, then they drop too. (The EUD trigger will still pass the condition, even though it is being run by a non current player, thus resulting in the desync).


One possible reason is the question in 2nd post, by Leeroy, to drop them only after they have had a chance to click defeat (and haven't). Also I do not agree that triggers are always cheaper than strings (for example map lag). But this only needs one string (and typically you would want to notify the banned player that they are banned which requires one string anyways). But if you really don't want to use even one string, you could always use a string from the mission objectives/briefing/force/unit names, thus not adding any strings.

Confimed that leaderboard text and mission briefing are in variable locations, probably better off sticking with text.

Yeah it does.

For example. The only time a player will be banned, is if the players vote to do so. So, in the trigger that has the EUD conditions, add in more conditions so that the only players that will drop will be the ones that have been voted to do so.

The voting of a person makes that person center their view at 0x0.

This way, if someone wasn't voted out, and their screen just happened to be at 0x0, they will not fill all the required conditions for the dropping trigger to fire.

I have the feeling that zynastor's oblivion doesn't allow center views, to stop such a thing, as well as antihacks like in temple siege.

Can anyone confirm this?

It would ruin certain maps if there were no center views. Also, you can always just use a different EUD condition if one gets patched.

screen detection is pointless. text or player detection are the only logical methods. Perhaps you could read supply, but I doubt it.

Why is it pointless..? I've been using it with no problems ever since Farty showed me.

Text detection won't have false positives while written with 2 triggers.

Screen detection will:
Conditions:
Screen at 0x0
Player 1 is banned
Actions:
whatever

If player 1 and player 2 are at 0x0, they will both run the trigger and desync together (I think that's what happens). How do you prevent player 2 from running the trigger? By using some other non-shared EUD, thus defeating the purpose. Certainly you can decrease the likelihood of erroneous desync by limiting when the trigger can run, but it's not infallible.

From Zynastor's topic on Oblivion v4.0.6c:

I'm not familiar with hacks or their use, but it seems that EUD triggers won't desync Oblivion. (Possibly because it detects non-shared data and ignores such triggers?)

That detection protects from hack detection (like in snipers bald locks). It was a method of detecting hacks by reading modified memory location (changed by hack), and banning the player.

And did no one read my post? There is no point in using defeat before desync when defeat can be done after. Just use a simple give all units from player X to player Y (or kill all units for player X), desync, then defeat. No one is gonna use a stay alive hack when they are the only person in game.

Zyn finds the trigger which detects something, then edits the program to return a value which won't drop. Text detection and player detection never change, and (I think) if oblivion were to change these values, brood war would probably break. Suffice to say, hacks don't protect from EUD triggers in general, just specific EUD triggers which are custom tailored to the hack itself.

Change that to:

Conditions:
Screen at 0x0
Current player is banned
Actions:
whatever

So the only people that will run the trigger are the ones that fill the non-EUD condition. Multiple people won't desync (I think, I've never had it happen, and can't see why it would).

So Player 1 deaths of terran marine is 1.

Player 1 runs the trigger with screen at 0x0. Player 2 is also at 0x0.

All players know that player 1 deaths of terran marine is 1. Player 1's copy of SC runs the trigger for player 1. Player 2's copy of SC runs the trigger for player 1. Player 3's copy of SC does not run the trigger. Player 3 descyncs from player 1 and 2.

Why?

Yeah I just tested it, and both players are desynced. I don't know why since only one player should be running the trigger >.>

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Mar 26 2010, 6:25 pm by CecilSunkure.

All players run all triggers from all players.

If a player's screen location is at (0, 0), the condition for detecting (0, 0) will return true.

Stop thinking in terms of triggers.

Here's the trigger again:
Conditions:
Screen at 0x0
Current player is banned (deaths of player 1)

Computer 1 is Player 1:
His screen is at 0x0, which passes the first condition.
"Current Player" is banned. In this case, player 1 is running the trigger, so the game checks to see if "Player 1" is banned. True.

Computer 2 is Player 2:
His screen is at 0x0, which passes the first condition (this is of his own free will, mind you).
"Current Player" is banned. In this case, player 1 is running the trigger, but Computer 2 still has to run the same trigger. It sees that Player 1 is indeed banned, so this condition is true.

Computer 3 is Player 3:
His screen is not at 0x0, false.
"Current Player" is banned. Again, player 1 is used, and sure enough, player 1 has death count or switch signifying he is banned. True.

There's a significant difference when dealing with non-shared EUDs and normal triggers. "Current Player" reflects the PLAYER, not the COMPUTER. If you give "current player" 2000 minerals, all other players in the game have to know that "current player" has those 2000 minerals more, so they will run the trigger FOR "current player" as well.

Oh I understand now. Thanks for the explanation rockz.

It's probably a little late for bringing this up, but I made a topic at Maplantis regarding this.
I thought I had a post here with a map, but I can't find it.