Open GoogleCodeExporter opened 9 years ago
Interesting stuff, I would like to see same kind of stuff in SG. We may
collaborate
on such feature. For SG, I was thinking about that to authorize new SG mod to
bind
the game easily. What I though about (just an idea):
- use a serverinfo cvar to authorize server to specify a mod for client, something
like "g_gameMod"
- use that cvar to search for QVM pointed by something like
va("vm/qagame-%i.qvm",g_gameMod.integer) string
- that mod QVM should be loaded after legacy qagame QVM and any shared and exported
symbol could replace the one from legacy.
- as we have an authorization server for 1.1 branch, I though we can use it to trust
such game mod. Mod developers would be able to submit their mod code and we
authorize
it after it has been checked for any security issue. In that way, we won't have
to
control the content by itself or any introduced bug, only security issue.
I think you mean "add-on system" for the client game also. Personally I though
only
about qagame because of security issue. Client should not authorize private QVM
is
this can be used for cheating. But we may also think to use the authorization
server
to trust a modded cgame or even ui.
I think also we may authorize auto-update for such features, so MOD developer
can
propose quick updates.
Of course, g_gameMod as integer is only a shortcut, we can also think to
specify an
easy MOD id.
Téquila
Original comment by bougar...@gmail.com
on 12 Oct 2009 at 8:34
about "security" issue in terms of cheating with clientside qvms --- isn't
sv_pure
taking care about that matter?
Original comment by mortijs-...@yahoo.de
on 12 Oct 2009 at 2:22
Of course yes, sv_pure won't authorize QVM different from the server one to be
loaded
by the client. But then the authorization server (with adaptations) may be used
to
say clients trying to connect to such a server they can download it. The idea
is to
centralized the "pure" tests for add-on/MOD and permit clients to have new mod
automatically, using engine download feature. In my point of view, this could
be good
for any SG/SGFork modder.
Original comment by bougar...@gmail.com
on 12 Oct 2009 at 2:48
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
kikc...@gmail.com
on 11 Oct 2009 at 12:29