|
On April 13 2012 16:05 BoxingKangaroo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2012 15:55 DigitalDevil wrote:On April 13 2012 15:49 BoxingKangaroo wrote:On April 13 2012 15:41 DigitalDevil wrote:On April 13 2012 15:22 hegeo wrote:On April 13 2012 15:11 DigitalDevil wrote:On April 13 2012 15:06 hegeo wrote:On April 13 2012 15:04 DigitalDevil wrote:
One programmer can do this within such a short span of time and Blizz can't implement something decent for who knows how long? I'm wondering - did they ever say they couldn't? I don't think so. Who cares if they ever said they could or couldn't? The fact that it's not implemented speaks for itself, and if it is technically this easy to implement, then there is unlikely to be good justification to not have it implemented. Blizz is either lazy or incompetent. One should care for what they said (or didn't) if one wants to understand. Do you _really_ think they wouldn't already have implemented it before if they wanted to? They are neither lazy nor incompetent. They just have other plans. Blizzard can make mistakes. This is one of them. I'm a programmer myself so it's not like I don't understand it can take time to implement features. But you're seriously defending Blizzard when one programmer can implement a feature that is highly requested within a few days? If Blizzard feels this is not high on their priority, then that can only reflect incompetence albeit in a different sense. Seriously, someone was able to write a hack that hooks onto the game while Blizzard has the actual source code to the game itself which should be WAY simpler to modify. Nowhere in the OP did he say it only took a few days. I'm still skeptical that this allows players to continue playing against each other and not just one resuming a replay. I'll wait for confirmation on that. edit: For example, what does the game client do when someone wins a resumed replay? Records of wins/losses (even customs) are recorded server-side - so some reporting must take place. If the server has no record of the game being created then.... what? You're right, he didn't. But it certainly seems like so given the timing. People have been talking about this for months...
I looked through the code. It's certainly doable within a few days.
|
On April 13 2012 16:07 DigitalDevil wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2012 16:05 BoxingKangaroo wrote:On April 13 2012 15:55 DigitalDevil wrote:On April 13 2012 15:49 BoxingKangaroo wrote:On April 13 2012 15:41 DigitalDevil wrote:On April 13 2012 15:22 hegeo wrote:On April 13 2012 15:11 DigitalDevil wrote:On April 13 2012 15:06 hegeo wrote:On April 13 2012 15:04 DigitalDevil wrote:
One programmer can do this within such a short span of time and Blizz can't implement something decent for who knows how long? I'm wondering - did they ever say they couldn't? I don't think so. Who cares if they ever said they could or couldn't? The fact that it's not implemented speaks for itself, and if it is technically this easy to implement, then there is unlikely to be good justification to not have it implemented. Blizz is either lazy or incompetent. One should care for what they said (or didn't) if one wants to understand. Do you _really_ think they wouldn't already have implemented it before if they wanted to? They are neither lazy nor incompetent. They just have other plans. Blizzard can make mistakes. This is one of them. I'm a programmer myself so it's not like I don't understand it can take time to implement features. But you're seriously defending Blizzard when one programmer can implement a feature that is highly requested within a few days? If Blizzard feels this is not high on their priority, then that can only reflect incompetence albeit in a different sense. Seriously, someone was able to write a hack that hooks onto the game while Blizzard has the actual source code to the game itself which should be WAY simpler to modify. Nowhere in the OP did he say it only took a few days. I'm still skeptical that this allows players to continue playing against each other and not just one resuming a replay. I'll wait for confirmation on that. edit: For example, what does the game client do when someone wins a resumed replay? Records of wins/losses (even customs) are recorded server-side - so some reporting must take place. If the server has no record of the game being created then.... what? You're right, he didn't. But it certainly seems like so given the timing. People have been talking about this for months... I looked through the code. It's certainly doable within a few days.
I'm at work now so can't check the code (and CPP isn't my thing anyway). I'm still skeptical that the knowledge needed to write an injection program could be gained in a few days. Of course this knowledge might already be out there (in the form of hacks etc.)
|
Could someone help me test this out in multiplayer? Join channel "DeltruS" on NA.
|
Ok I just tested it with my own account and a starter account on two different computers. It seemed to work perfectly for a short replay (~3 minutes long). Everything looked to be in the same position when I resumed to the 2:50 mark, and further actions displayed on both players' screens. My only reservation is that I'm not entirely sure how the two clients would stay in sync (what if one of the clients "plays through" the replay faster than the other?) but I haven't tested it on a longer replay to see if it's a problem.
|
On April 13 2012 16:16 BoxingKangaroo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2012 16:07 DigitalDevil wrote:On April 13 2012 16:05 BoxingKangaroo wrote:On April 13 2012 15:55 DigitalDevil wrote:On April 13 2012 15:49 BoxingKangaroo wrote:On April 13 2012 15:41 DigitalDevil wrote:On April 13 2012 15:22 hegeo wrote:On April 13 2012 15:11 DigitalDevil wrote:On April 13 2012 15:06 hegeo wrote:On April 13 2012 15:04 DigitalDevil wrote:
One programmer can do this within such a short span of time and Blizz can't implement something decent for who knows how long? I'm wondering - did they ever say they couldn't? I don't think so. Who cares if they ever said they could or couldn't? The fact that it's not implemented speaks for itself, and if it is technically this easy to implement, then there is unlikely to be good justification to not have it implemented. Blizz is either lazy or incompetent. One should care for what they said (or didn't) if one wants to understand. Do you _really_ think they wouldn't already have implemented it before if they wanted to? They are neither lazy nor incompetent. They just have other plans. Blizzard can make mistakes. This is one of them. I'm a programmer myself so it's not like I don't understand it can take time to implement features. But you're seriously defending Blizzard when one programmer can implement a feature that is highly requested within a few days? If Blizzard feels this is not high on their priority, then that can only reflect incompetence albeit in a different sense. Seriously, someone was able to write a hack that hooks onto the game while Blizzard has the actual source code to the game itself which should be WAY simpler to modify. Nowhere in the OP did he say it only took a few days. I'm still skeptical that this allows players to continue playing against each other and not just one resuming a replay. I'll wait for confirmation on that. edit: For example, what does the game client do when someone wins a resumed replay? Records of wins/losses (even customs) are recorded server-side - so some reporting must take place. If the server has no record of the game being created then.... what? You're right, he didn't. But it certainly seems like so given the timing. People have been talking about this for months... I looked through the code. It's certainly doable within a few days. I'm at work now so can't check the code (and CPP isn't my thing anyway). I'm still skeptical that the knowledge needed to write an injection program could be gained in a few days. Of course this knowledge might already be out there (in the form of hacks etc.)
Of course it takes more than a few days to gain that knowledge haha. But it's an assumed prerequisite just like how SC2 programmers are expected to know their own codebase. I mean, if you know what you're doing, have done it before, etc, it doesn't take ages. Thankfully, I doubt the Blizzard folks would have to learn about code injection. 
|
On April 13 2012 14:09 Soft`Soap wrote:
I think that putting a link to download hacks is against the tl.net code
I think that leaving your findings is fine, but you should probably delete the download links.
Somehow didnt stop voice/sound packs and custom backgrounds, stronger team colors etc, its all "illegal".
|
On April 13 2012 14:10 Soft`Soap wrote:
On a side note, this is a cool concept and if it sounds so easy to implement, it makes me wonder, why hasn't Blizzard done something like this?
The technology just isn't there yet.
|
I just downloaded a replay from gamereplays.org (had to be one from the latest version, on XNC with a Terran, due to my use of a starter edition as the second player) and jumped into it at the 10:00 mark. Seemed perfect. You get a "waiting for player" screen if one of the computers reaches the desired point before the other, until they sync up. Wins/losses are handled properly on the score screen and in match history. You even get the same chat log. I really can't see any problems with it.
edit: even if tournaments don't use this to salvage games, I imagine there will be people out there who would love to jump into the middle of a pro replay and see if they can do better, for example.
|
On April 13 2012 16:37 Severian wrote:
I just downloaded a replay from gamereplays.org (had to be one from the latest version, on XNC with a Terran, due to my use of a starter edition as the second player) and jumped into it at the 10:00 mark. Seemed perfect. You get a "waiting for player" screen if one of the computers reaches the desired point before the other, until they sync up. Wins/losses are handled properly on the score screen and in match history. You even get the same chat log. I really can't see any problems with it.
Wow, quite amazing if it handles the sync issue as well.
|
On April 13 2012 16:37 Severian wrote:
I just downloaded a replay from gamereplays.org (had to be one from the latest version, on XNC with a Terran, due to my use of a starter edition as the second player) and jumped into it at the 10:00 mark. Seemed perfect. You get a "waiting for player" screen if one of the computers reaches the desired point before the other, until they sync up. Wins/losses are handled properly on the score screen and in match history. You even get the same chat log. I really can't see any problems with it.
edit: even if tournaments don't use this to salvage games, I imagine there will be people out there who would love to jump into the middle of a pro replay and see if they can do better, for example.
Awesome!
If many people can test and confirm that it works, the author should send the program to tournament organisers and teams. They are the ones with the clout to influence Blizzard.
|
Wow this sound very promising, I personally would love to use this to practice. Kinda disappointed in Bliz..
I doubt if they would put this in game though, not until they allow more than 1 to watch replay
|
If can be a powerful tool if used correctly for progamers too. Imagine being able to test your micro time and time again against a timing attack.
|
On April 13 2012 16:43 essencez wrote:
If can be a powerful tool if used correctly for progamers too. Imagine being able to test your micro time and time again against a timing attack.
Ahhhh!. This is a really good point you have there. Now i can definitely see this being so useful.
|
So according to some people in this thread, this actually works? And it works well? You, sir, are a genius.
I don't think this will be useful for the average user who just ladders, as ladder points are trivial in the grand scheme of things (unless you're Tasteless). However, I would really like to see all tournaments start to use this kind of program, especially considering how well it works allegedly. I really don't see a problem with this getting used in tournaments, especially high-profile ones. The utility of this is just exceptional.
|
On April 13 2012 16:37 Severian wrote:
I just downloaded a replay from gamereplays.org (had to be one from the latest version, on XNC with a Terran, due to my use of a starter edition as the second player) and jumped into it at the 10:00 mark. Seemed perfect. You get a "waiting for player" screen if one of the computers reaches the desired point before the other, until they sync up. Wins/losses are handled properly on the score screen and in match history. You even get the same chat log. I really can't see any problems with it.
edit: even if tournaments don't use this to salvage games, I imagine there will be people out there who would love to jump into the middle of a pro replay and see if they can do better, for example.
Do you only need to run the program on 1 of the computers or both? Do both computers need the replay?
If the answer to both of those questions is "no" then this is going to be a really cool way to rematch players after a ladder game.
|
SALT is a custom map and requires those settings into every map the tournament uses might not be viable. But with this method, I could see how tournaments could get behind it because it doesn't require a custom map and can virtually load any map the tournament uses and instantly go back to the end of the replay.
pretty cool!
|
So how does the second player join the game? T_T
|
On April 13 2012 16:48 DeltruS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2012 16:37 Severian wrote:
I just downloaded a replay from gamereplays.org (had to be one from the latest version, on XNC with a Terran, due to my use of a starter edition as the second player) and jumped into it at the 10:00 mark. Seemed perfect. You get a "waiting for player" screen if one of the computers reaches the desired point before the other, until they sync up. Wins/losses are handled properly on the score screen and in match history. You even get the same chat log. I really can't see any problems with it.
edit: even if tournaments don't use this to salvage games, I imagine there will be people out there who would love to jump into the middle of a pro replay and see if they can do better, for example. Do you only need to run the program on 1 of the computers or both? Do both computers need the replay? If the answer to both of those questions is "no" then this is going to be a really cool way to rematch players after a ladder game.
You run it on both computers and both computers need the replay. I haven't tried it on an actually dropped game, though, where possibly the replay files would be slightly different at the end.
On April 13 2012 17:03 Bjoernzor wrote:
So how does the second player join the game? T_T
You set up a regular custom game between the two players, exactly like as if you were going to re-game it rather than try to salvage the replay. Both players run this program, give it the replay and the same timestamp to jump to. Then when the host starts the custom game inside SC2, the two clients automatically perform all of the same actions that the two players did in the replay, up to the point you chose. It's like if you wrote a script to perform every keypress exactly the same as you did in the replay (except sped up). You're then able to play out the rest of the game as if you were still in the original one. There's room for improvement, though: I'd expect an official version to include some sort of pause at that point so that the players can be ready (it's a little abrupt at the moment) and there's nothing stopping you from interfering with the playback (imagine going back in time and altering events).
|
This is awesame!! If I wasnt afraid of being banned for this i'd most definately use it! Will try on a starter account when i get home!
|
On April 13 2012 17:10 Severian wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2012 16:48 DeltruS wrote:On April 13 2012 16:37 Severian wrote:
I just downloaded a replay from gamereplays.org (had to be one from the latest version, on XNC with a Terran, due to my use of a starter edition as the second player) and jumped into it at the 10:00 mark. Seemed perfect. You get a "waiting for player" screen if one of the computers reaches the desired point before the other, until they sync up. Wins/losses are handled properly on the score screen and in match history. You even get the same chat log. I really can't see any problems with it.
edit: even if tournaments don't use this to salvage games, I imagine there will be people out there who would love to jump into the middle of a pro replay and see if they can do better, for example. Do you only need to run the program on 1 of the computers or both? Do both computers need the replay? If the answer to both of those questions is "no" then this is going to be a really cool way to rematch players after a ladder game. You run it on both computers and both computers need the replay. I haven't tried it on an actually dropped game, though, where possibly the replay files would be slightly different at the end. Show nested quote +On April 13 2012 17:03 Bjoernzor wrote:
So how does the second player join the game? T_T You set up a regular custom game between the two players, exactly like as if you were going to re-game it rather than try to salvage the replay. Both players run this program, give it the replay and the same timestamp to jump to. Then when the host starts the custom game inside SC2, the two clients automatically perform all of the same actions that the two players did in the replay, up to the point you chose. It's like if you wrote a script to perform every keypress exactly the same as you did in the replay (except sped up). You're then able to play out the rest of the game as if you were still in the original one. There's room for improvement, though: I'd expect an official version to include some sort of pause at that point so that the players can be ready (it's a little abrupt at the moment) and there's nothing stopping you from interfering with the playback (imagine going back in time and altering events).
The implications of this are amazing. In a really good way. I hope this doesn't end up getting shut down for some technical or leigtimacy reason.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
