View Full Version : Shared images in FG

May 24th, 2005, 06:12
I have noticed that when the GM shares a map that the player characters could go to the images directory and open this file up in paint, or other graphic program, and view it regardless of if it is masked or not. I shouldn't have a problem with this since most players in my group are adults, but it would be peace of mind knowing that no one can see what is "behind the curtain". I have a solution to this that hopefully the developers might consider. When a player downloads an image a string of characters could be put into the file, this would corrupt the file and a Player Character would not be able to open the file by other programs like paint. Now, when FG uses this file and read into memory, the string of characters could be stripped out so that the file could be read by FG. Basically, corrupt the file in a way that it can only be used by FG.
If there is one thing that can ruin a game, it's a cheater. I hope the developers will keep this in mind and put in features to prevent this from happening.

May 31st, 2005, 05:22
No comment from the developers on this? I would think that they would be concerned the potential of players to cheat.

May 31st, 2005, 18:41
Encryption of images and other ways of making preloaded/uploaded content more resistant to cheating are being worked on.

June 1st, 2005, 01:43
No, no! Please!

I mean, I think the programmers time is better used on fixing stability issues (crashes), or annoying bugs (like having an extra player when there is none). Instead of something that is up to the people playing the game.

If you have cheaters in your game and you don't like it, then you should remove said players from your game. Don't blame it on the developers and/or program, or expect them to babysit your game. It's like chaining a monitor to the desk of an employee because he stole one before... you don't chain anything, you fire his ***.

It can be an extra feature when everything is said and done. But IMO there are more important features/issues to do/fix before that.

June 2nd, 2005, 05:09
The GM puts a lot of time into the campaign and to have someone take advantage of holes in the software is a waste of everyones time. Like I said, I don't have a problem with anyone "cheating" in my group, but as easy as it is for someone to view a map it kinda defeats the purpose of having the masking don't you think? Did I blame the software or the developers??? No, absolutley not. I don't expect the developers to "babysit" my game, but there should be checks in place so that it prevents people from cheating. Bottom line, cheaters ruin games. It is good to see the developers care about this and are doing something about it. To say don't work on this, just fix bugs is absurd. If you read other posts you'll see bug fixing is their top priority. Is that all they are doing, NO. After they fix all the bugs you'll be saying don't put enhancements in because you might break something.
As far as the monitor analogy, if you don't know who stole the monitor who do you fire???? If you don't know who is cheating, who do you get rid of? You may have suspicions that someone is cheating, but you will never know for sure. The best approach is to stop it before it starts, I'm glad the developers are doing something about it.

June 2nd, 2005, 15:12
If you have the Fog of war feature, then it stands to reason that encrypting the image file will go a long way to making an already great product better. Otherwise, why have the fog of war.
The point isn't who is cheating.... the point is preventing the cheating from taking place. You never know, a person could look at the file accidentally.

You can place my vote for the encryption of pictures..... :)

On the same note, (Ducking in anticipation of a storm.) When is 1.05 due out???

June 2nd, 2005, 19:29
Oh NO! Please don't take my access away from my DMs maps! I have the windows explorer open to that area of the program every time I play and it's really useful to open those maps. It helps me plan out what to do and where to go (or more importantly where not to go.) I hate dead ends that lead to nothing but irritating monsters that I didn't have to fight or places I didn't have to explore. Please don't waste your valuable programmign time just to break something that is really useful. It's not like my DM will know I look at the content. I'm great about making it to a few places I didn't have to go to just to throw him off.

LOL j/k
:lol: :lol: :lol:

June 2nd, 2005, 19:58
Fog of war and ecryption are two different things. I, as a player, want to have fun and want to explore the dungeon (for example). Having it show just the parts that I can see, or visited, is helpful and fun. Having the file on my HD, as a plain file or encrypted, does nothing for my gaming experience.

Before pants get bunchied up, read the end of my 1st post, is says:

> It can be an extra feature when everything is said and done. But IMO there are more important features/issues to do/fix before that.

And to make myself even more clear, I'm not against the encryption of the files, just against the waste of programmers time at this point in time.

What about a quick scramble of bytes? Would that stop your cheater players? Or ar they hackers too?
For the programmers (yes, I'm a programmer too): This can be a one time pad encryption scheme, only that is not one time or you won't be able to read it the next time the server starts (assuming the server is the one dealing out the pad for the clients). Hell, it can be the same pad hardcoded in the program... again we are not dealing against hackers here.

This can be implemented in an hour or two by someone who knows the code inside and out. Depending on the file format, it may not scramble the image information to an unviewable state, BUT it WILL effectively mangle the header information of any graphics file, preventing any graphics application from opening it.

June 2nd, 2005, 20:15
Oops! After I finished rambling, I noticed that Cantstanzya had offered an even faster way of doing it in his 1st post!

That can be done in 15 minutes, 30 if you are a good programmer (Larry Wall anybody?)

My apologies for the discussion when there really was none.