>>348890049
>>348890246
That's some considerably based code anon, thank you
[spoiler]i didn't bother checking your code when you've posted it here once before because semi autism, semi desire to pull it off on my own and learn on my own mistakes. i'm not enjoying learning on the mistake i've just made though, so now i think i'm gonna diligently copy your entire packet validation and check through rest of the stuff to make sure i'm not missing on any possible problems anymore. my code is a bit less clean in terms of how objects communicate with each other, but same general ideas should apply[/spoiler]