Discussion regarding providing more context for bytes in hacking

#1

That’s kind of irrelevant seeing as the exp gain is stored in the attacker struct anyways. Plus it’d be more useful to give the address of a function as opposed to a single isolated byte.
also $1A isn’t 20

Random useful offsets
#2

How many basic users are going to be willing to dive into a function to find how it’s calculated, and where all the bonuses are applied?
I do tend to get As and 4s mixed up though, that’s my bad.

#3

Well if you understand the basics of the ABI and can follow the instructions, most functions are decipherable at least to some degree (ie you can determine what it returns etc) and if you label the address of a function, you can call it in a hack which I and others have done previously, and can be put in better context than a single byte. Just my 2 cents

#4

Very good question raised here.

The response?
Gibberish essentially; while we appreciate your knowledge of this area, 99.9% of people who will want to use this will not have a clue what you just said. Maybe you should keep that in mind next time, Igor.

#5

The point isn’t for noobies to have an idea of what is being said; the point is to give anyone who’d want to have a crack at rewriting the code a better idea of what’s happening there, rather than just a single byte.

It’s good practice and good documentation to describe to someone the function and purpose of what they’re changing, rather than simply telling them “this will fix it”, in my opinion.

#6

I’m not a “noobie” and I had trouble understanding the purpose of him saying all of that when the address is clearly in the opening post (maybe I’m missing an edit, because I saw an address the first time I looked at the topic.)

#7

The address needed to be put into context.

#8

The purpose is documenting information about a function makes it easier for people to edit or rewrite entirely than just knowing about one byte. Granted, the people who know how to use that information are few, but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be available. I’m not even saying it should be that instead of “change x to change y”, which is what it sounds like you think I’m saying, but if you’re going to make a topic about useful addresses in the game they should be to the whole function and interesting opcodes can be highlighted. A perfect example of this would be jjl2357’s documentation which labels a whole bunch of functions and their purpose as well as parameters. Don’t you know C# anyway? What did I say that was so confusing to you?

Anyways, my point is, if a topic is going to be devoted to useful addresses, it should have more context and comments.

1 Like
#9

Yeah, that’s useful. Those who want to know more can toggle a breakpoint there and research it themselves. Of course more info. of it is better.

1 Like
#10

And if you had just said this, rather than a bunch of random jargon, we’d all be a lot happier right now. (Even though all the information needed was supplied anyway, other than a typo.)

“The best proof you are a good programmer is that even an idiot can understand you when you describe your code.” -Mark Twain

2 Likes
split this topic #11

I moved a post to an existing topic: Random useful offsets

#12

i agree with brendor’s sentiment, but tbh nobody who’s really capable of modifying the corresponding routine in any significant manner would also be able to trace the function to it’s beginning from the address given pretty trivially

#13

In the defense of Brendor and just general paying-attention, if you’d actually read what Brendor wrote you’d see this, which makes perfect sense to me. It’d be like someone saying “oh this is the pointer to Eliwood’s inventory in chapter 11” rather than giving you the offset to the entire chapter event sequence, which I would argue is far more useful than a single byte.