Excuse me, of course, but I’m sick of it, I explain the same thing to every other person every day.
I’ve spent an awful lot of time on this. THIS IS MY LAST RESPONSE TO SUCH A THING, I WILL NOT RESPOND TO SUCH A THING AGAIN! I’M TIRED OF ANSWERING WHAT I’VE ANSWERED 1000000 TIMES. MY WORDS IN THE BEGINNING OF THE TOPIC:
MY WORDS IN REPLY:
THE VIDEO WHERE I MYSELF SHOWED THIS CIRCUMVENTION, FOR I MYSELF SAID ABOUT IT IN THE VERY BEGINNING
STOP TALKING TO ME ABOUT, WHAT I SAID IN THE BEGINNING GO TO THE ORIGINAL AND MAKE SURE IT SAYS THAT, AND IT WAS WRITTEN FROM THE BEGINNING
WHERE WERE YOU LOOKING WHEN YOU READ THE TOPIC? EXPLAIN TO ME.
======== IN THE NEXT FEW HOURS, I’M GOING TO CLOSE THIS TOPIC, I’M TIRED OF IT. I regret that I created this topic.
It would have been better if I hadn’t created it, I’d rather have done nothing.
I mean, you told us to tell you why it was bad practice, but apparently, you still want to spend your time on this project, your only “anti-exploit” here that works is the SERVER check for local script deletion, all other anti-exploits in this project are client sided and we bypassed them with beginner scripts
Forward at least 1 of my responses where I asked someone to explain why my defense is bad.
Will you stop making things up that I didn’t say?
Or is it hard for you to admit you were wrong?
And I didn’t ask anyone, anywhere, to explain to me why my defense is bad in practice.
It’s so cool for you to make up things that aren’t there.
What other “anti-exploits” are you talking about…
What have you circumvented? You couldn’t get around anything. Since when did “FireServer” become a defense against anything?
This function is for sending data, not for protection
I told you - that you can’t get around the protection against removing the script (That’s the whole point of this topic.)
You’re telling me about disabling, and who’s wrong here?
another time, you have edited the main topic, when I first came to this topic you were asking us to see if the client anti-exploit was good, no, it isn’t
the only thing that works in your anti-exploit is the server check, guess why
another time, you have edited the main topic, when I first came to this topic you were asking us to see if the client anti-exploit was good, no, it isn’t
the only thing that works in your anti-exploit is the server check, guess why
and literally everyone made a script that disabled your local script, even me, so don’t question other people’s coding knowledge without even knowing what client/server replication is
You are now asking us “yea yeah bla bla bla you can disable the script but not remove it”. Maybe because the SERVER is the one which checks for the local script deletion? You cannot bypass the server unless certain conditions
Thank you for not just making it up, but already outright lying.
I didn’t change anything in the topic, I only added words after editing, but I didn’t change the old ones. (Considering what I added, I marked it as “clarified”)
If the administration has access to what my topic looked like in the beginning, they will quietly confirm that I did not write such a thing.
Learn to read instead of throwing words around.
1 - Did I ask something else before that? If yes, please forward my reply, where I asked something other than removing the script
2 - And in the beginning you said, very different words))
"exploiters can always manage to destroy your localscripts easily" "and, since that change won’t get replicated, the server won’t realize if they got deleted or not"
it’s to the point that when you first got to the topic, you didn’t even read it)))
Because immediately began to claim that the server does not come anything))) It turns out: you say that I edited something there, and my topic at the beginning looked different, but you did not even read it when I created it)))
Stop burying yourself even more.
You try to make stuff up so you don’t have to admit you were wrong.
I have nothing against you, no negativity.
But you just look silly, trying to make things up so you don’t have to admit you were wrong.
Response to topic:
Yes, it’s a working protection of the LocalScript from deletion.
There is no way around it (at least at the moment)
Extras
For those who will say - so the protection can be bypassed by simply disabling the script.
I’ll tell you - so it’s not protection from disabling, but from removal, so, what questions do you have for me?
Sets the Instance.Parent property to nil, locks the Instance.Parent property, disconnects all connections…
“locks the Instance.Parent ” – means that the parent of the object can no longer be changed
“disconnects all connections” - means that the connection associated with the location is disconnect from the object (as I think)
What we have:
The parent no longer exists (“object.Parent = nil”). more precisely it is locked to “nil”
The object cannot move somewhere because it no longer accepts data about its location (not sure about this to the end)
From what we have learned, we can conclude that it is impossible to bypass the protection.
For those who want to use my defense in their game, read this first:
READ
I strongly advise against using my defense in a real game
1 - The server script is not perfect, and there will be random kicks at the time of death, as well as if the player has a sagging internet, it also kicks.
2. The script can be bypassed very easily, just watch the video, and everything you understand:
Video
That is, you protect the script from removal, but who forbids disabling it (in the real game)?
That’s right, no one.
3. Considering all of the above, we conclude that in the real game, defense is useless.
4. For my protection to make sense in a real game, you would have to make a protection against LocalScript disabling. - Which is impossible, believe me, many have tried, but it’s impossible, don’t even try. At the moment it is impossible.
So think 10,000 times before you add my defense to your game.
That’s all, thanks to everyone who participated in the discussion, I am not offended by anyone, and I hope no one is offended by me as well.