I wrote a program that allows games to be resumed (eg. after a disconnect) by using the replay to recreate the game up to a certain point and then resuming play as normal.
This is just a hack and meant merely as a demonstration of how easy it is to implement technically, though through my limited testing it has worked fine to resume multiplayer games.
Note that this is a 3rd party program, it does modify Starcraft 2 in memory, and I provide no warranty; use at your own risk.
How to use the thing:
First you need to hit 'Inject' (provided SC2 is running). The program then loads itself into SC2.
The resume time textbox specifies the time (in minutes:seconds) at which the game will be resumed; when the game starts, it will quickly progress up until the specified time, then play will resume as normal. Do not perform any actions in-game while the game is progressing, or things might get screwed up
The 'Resume replay' button makes it so the next replay that is viewed in SC2 will be resumed with the player playing as the player who saved the replay the host of the original game. There will be no replay UI as there usually is. Not really a very useful feature, but it was easy to implement, so why not.
The 'Resume game' button will resume the next regular game played. This requires a replay to be specified (using the Browse button). It is important that the game settings (map, number of players and races) are the same as in the replay, or things will not go as planned. This can be used, for instance, to resume a disconnected multiplayer game, if all players specify either the exact same replay or their respective replays from the same game, and exactly the same resume time.
A feature to resume disconnected games is needed in Starcraft 2. It's not hard to make. One can only hope that Blizzard realizes this.
edit:
I made it so it pauses the game upon reaching the specified time, and it disables user input until then. I also included the code contained in util.lib, since people have been requesting it. StormLibRAS.lib is, well, StormLib. It does not wait for all players to finish fast-forwarding, however, so it be best to confirm all players are ready before unpausing.
There is of course a few issues, the most notable right now is that it seems to matter who hosted/which order people joined. Most likely, the order joined/slot occupied by player must match with the originals from the replay, this is again most likely due to simple unit numbering internally in SC2, where the host's units are created first and so forth.
Oh, and control groups are not restored. At least not with regards to the user interface. There should be no issues with spawn positions as this is indirectly determined by the random seed, which is overridden.
If anyone actually wants to use this, or if Blizzard would approve of use of this program, then I would need to make a better version.
edit: I fixed control groups, yey.
edit: Okay, I fixed the whole join in the right order thing. You should now play as the player who was in your spot, regardless of which order you joined in. It also sets your race. I hope I didn't break anything :D
edit: I fixed unicode support in the UI. It turns out koreans play this game, too.
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.
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?
What's simple for somebody may not be so simple for others. Maybe Blizz simply never thought of this method.
Interesting but i can't see how this would actually be of use. Maybe, just maybe for tournaments but then again i can't see organizers allowing a third party program like this. Who knows though. Maybe you should add a poll to the OP to get the communities opinion on the matter.
Oh, this looks really interesting, I will definitely test it!
One quick question. Say that a game have two players and one observer - is it enough if only the observer have this hack implemented, or is it required for all of the players/observers to have this installed?
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?
What's simple for somebody may not be so simple for others. Maybe Blizz simply never thought of this method.
Maybe Blizz might hire him to implement this function officially
sounds like some of you havent ever used the internet before... i thought everyone learned their lesson about downloading random programs from unverified sources a long time ago
Great to keep as a reference! I hope blizzard can see this and try adding some kind of stuff to it.
I would love to see this integrated with replay "group" session. Imagine opening a replay with a friend, setting it up for a big engagement he screwed up, and replaying it once and again, until you can figure out how to best deal with a certain situation. OH MAN THAT WOULD BE AWESOME
This can be used, for instance, to resume a disconnected multiplayer game, if all players specify either the exact same replay or their respective replays from the same game, and exactly the same resume time.
I haven't tested this at all, but how do you network them back together. I highly doubt this works..I wouldn't test a guy with one post guys...
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.
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.
there are multiple meanings of "hack" you know.
It's still a 3rd party program that Blizzard doesn't approve of
Took a quick look through the source code and don't see anything too suspicious. However, it does inject itself into SC2 so Warden may flag it as a hack. Use at your own risk, I wouldn't recommend using it though as of right now. Hopefully R1CH or someone else with more knowledge can come and confirm.
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?
What's simple for somebody may not be so simple for others. Maybe Blizz simply never thought of this method.
or maybe resuming a game offline from a replay is completely different than reconnecting online
Using an unauthorized program would probably incur a Bnet ban, so I'll just wait until Blizzard creates their own similar feature. Good idea, though. Sins of a Solar Empire has a feature that lets you resume multi-player games, and it works quite well. I'm sure Blizzard is working on it.
You should probably try to contact Blizzard directly about it? It is great tool that you've created! At best you will get something from Blizzard and the thing will be implemented atleast at HotS or at some patch. (Bit too optimistic?:DD)
I'm assuming this is legit. I knew this would be possible and technically easy (even though I don't know the first thing about programming). The concept is so simple. Kudos on proving it! Hopefully Blizzard will take notice and implement this at some point (first they have to create replay lobbies). Not only is it a great idea for tournaments, but it would be fun to load up your own replays and practice fixing your mistakes (I guess the AI would take over the other player?) or see if you can replicate the actions of a pro from a given point in a game. Cool stuff.
I can't see anything suspicious in the source, but I'm not a security expert or anything. It looks like it simply tricks the game into running the replay functions when starting a new game, while also disabling the replay UI and overriding the RNG seed with the one stored in the replay. So you set up a custom game with a friend on the same map with the same players/etc as a replay and select the replay in the program from this thread. The program then tells SC2 to open up the replay and view it (essentially telling it to process all of the commands stored in the replay file) even though you're in a custom game, not in replay-view mode. It replaces the RNG seed in the custom game to ensure that events happen the same and disables the replay UI (which I guess is triggered by the functions it calls to load the replay).
I haven't tried building and running it but if it's that simple then it would be ludicrously simple for Blizzard to implement, short of a proper UI.
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?
What's simple for somebody may not be so simple for others. Maybe Blizz simply never thought of this method.
Warcraft 3 has this function so I don't really think that's the case
How would this work to make the both connected ends from the original game to battle.net to agree resuming the game? B.net would not know this game and would reject the connections.. remember sc2 is not p2p it is server/client...
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?
What's simple for somebody may not be so simple for others. Maybe Blizz simply never thought of this method.
Warcraft 3 has this function so I don't really think that's the case
Sorry but I don't remember WC3 having that...? What do you mean?
On April 13 2012 14:40 japi wrote: How would this work to make the both connected ends from the original game to battle.net to agree resuming the game? B.net would not know this game and would reject the connections.. remember sc2 is not p2p it is server/client...
Fishy.. 1 post... i don't buy this
did you read what anyone said? this is just proof of concept, so if it's really this easy to resume games, it should be fairly minor for the server discrepancies to be resolved.
On April 13 2012 14:40 japi wrote: How would this work to make the both connected ends from the original game to battle.net to agree resuming the game? B.net would not know this game and would reject the connections.. remember sc2 is not p2p it is server/client...
Fishy.. 1 post... i don't buy this
He posted the source code...if you're so suspicious, just DL, read through it, and then compile on your own.
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?
What's simple for somebody may not be so simple for others. Maybe Blizz simply never thought of this method.
Because this is a super secret method that's never been used in another game. Oh wait...
Haven't had time to look at the code yet, cool idea though. Of course, userland is not something Bnet wants to take input from, which is probably why this kind of implementation isn't there. Ladder havoc ftw. Could be nice for customs however.
As said in the last thread about this: It's not implemented in SC2 because of lack of will by Blizz. Nobody with a shred of programming knowledge would believe that it's too hard to code.
VirusTotal scan only reports 1/42, but I've no idea what "Heuristic.BehavesLike.Win32.Fake.K" is, sounds like an innocent falsepositive. Has anyone actually tried it out yet? In terms of the fact this program actually injects, I can't really confirm as to whether it'd be safe against warden or not. I don't know much about maphackers, but the main reason they get banned in waves is because of warden detecting the injections. Obviously this isn't intending for abusive hacking, but that won't change anything.
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?
What's simple for somebody may not be so simple for others. Maybe Blizz simply never thought of this method.
Warcraft 3 has this function so I don't really think that's the case
WC3 doesn't allow you to boot up a replay and let you resume playing from it. However, it does have the save and load tool for multiplayer games, which quite frankly, should never have been taken out of SC2. But I suppose that they might fear that their network code could be leaked in the process.
And AFAIK this tech isn't something new. I remember clicking around like an idiot in AOE2 while watching "recorded games" and I end up controlling the units + production facilities. Might be a bug or it could be intentional, but I never bothered to find out.
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?
What's simple for somebody may not be so simple for others. Maybe Blizz simply never thought of this method.
Warcraft 3 has this function so I don't really think that's the case
WC3 doesn't allow you to boot up a replay and let you resume playing from it. However, it does have the save and load tool for multiplayer games, which quite frankly, should never have been taken out of SC2. But I suppose that they might fear that their network code could be leaked in the process.
And AFAIK this tech isn't something new. I remember clicking around like an idiot in AOE2 while watching "recorded games" and I end up controlling the units + production facilities. Might be a bug or it could be intentional, but I never bothered to find out.
I was wondering why they didn't allow you to save and load. Those functions would make it SO much easier to practice some things =/
Hm, that reminds me of that old chess game "ChessMaster" or something like 15 years back, it was one of the default games on windows 98 (?) or something. You could watch replays but sometimes it would glitch especially if you click on stuff, and the computer AI would start making moves like it was a game. Then sometimes it would go back to doing random moves as if it were still a replay lol.
1st post makes this thread a null and void in my eyes. I would never test. I think both players and observers would each need to have this program for the game to resume perfectly. Even then, how would this program be able to tie in all the obersvers and the players in the same game instead of them all joining their own different(yet same) game through the replay.
Looks, smells and sounds quite fishy. Besides, it's a third party program so if Blizzard could implement something of the sorts, they would and with their own program. They wouldn't do it through a 3rd party though because it'd have to be tournament only. That would end up leaking out and people would have it which they wouldn't want. Hence no lan and no "tournament only lan".
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?
What's simple for somebody may not be so simple for others. Maybe Blizz simply never thought of this method.
Warcraft 3 has this function so I don't really think that's the case
WC3 doesn't allow you to boot up a replay and let you resume playing from it. However, it does have the save and load tool for multiplayer games, which quite frankly, should never have been taken out of SC2. But I suppose that they might fear that their network code could be leaked in the process.
And AFAIK this tech isn't something new. I remember clicking around like an idiot in AOE2 while watching "recorded games" and I end up controlling the units + production facilities. Might be a bug or it could be intentional, but I never bothered to find out.
I was wondering why they didn't allow you to save and load. Those functions would make it SO much easier to practice some things =/
Hm, that reminds me of that old chess game "ChessMaster" or something like 15 years back, it was one of the default games on windows 98 (?) or something. You could watch replays but sometimes it would glitch especially if you click on stuff, and the computer AI would start making moves like it was a game. Then sometimes it would go back to doing random moves as if it were still a replay lol.
Yes, something like that. Most likely a glitch or something, but I understand why a save function might not as relevant in a RTS when disconnects are unpredictable, and the momentum of the game can be shifted in under 30s depending on whether a cheese or a timing attack is discovered before the disconnect. I was hoping that at least a reconnect function would be in by HOTS though, since that would help out as well.
Ok I just built and tested it somewhat. I can confirm that it allows you to resume a replay on your own (I tested it by creating a short replay against the AI with distinctive commands (spread my first drones out in a formation) then attempting to resume that replay. It replicated the actions perfectly and I was able to continue playing). I tried to load a replay from a very old version of SC2 but it didn't work, which isn't surprising. I don't have anyone available to test the ability to co-operatively jump into the replay, though I don't see why it wouldn't work.
tbh I wouldn't click on the link until it gets verified by R1CH, but if it's the real deal then
OMG AMAZING TOURNAMENTS SHOULD USE THIS!
the possiblitys could be endless with this type of tool, practicing micro battles, jumping into the seat of your fav pro player vs a friend playing as his, not having another GSTL finals, I hope blizz brings this feature into hots or at least a reconnect like in dota2.
On April 13 2012 14:38 mrRoflpwn wrote: guy with 1 post posts download links, expects people to actually believe him.
Guy writes proof of concept program to resume replays in SC2. Since being a first time poster on TL, comments for months in LR threads/Nada's body to gain credibility. Comes back and says he developed a program to resume replays months ago. Comments will call this fishy and unlikely- why didn't he post it months ago when he programmed it?
On April 13 2012 15:00 Severian wrote: Ok I just built and tested it somewhat. I can confirm that it allows you to resume a replay on your own (I tested it by creating a short replay against the AI with distinctive commands (spread my first drones out in a formation) then attempting to resume that replay. It replicated the actions perfectly and I was able to continue playing). I tried to load a replay from a very old version of SC2 but it didn't work, which isn't surprising. I don't have anyone available to test the ability to co-operatively jump into the replay, though I don't see why it wouldn't work.
fyi I built my copy from source. I didn't download the binary from the OP, so I don't make any claims that the binary is virus-free. Same for the source but at least I'm subjecting myself to it too
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.
I think this is an excellent way to provide the point that c'mon wtf why isn't this already implemented some ground but without blizzard's backing I don't see this as very viable for it's intended use.
People have yet forgotten about 2 expansions which will add features throughout. It would be plain stupid from blizzards pov to add everything at the same time since they tend to be so money hunger company. I bet when the LotV is out there will be statistics, lan, this thing what the topic is all about, and plenty of other stuff that I just can't figure out.
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.
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?
What's simple for somebody may not be so simple for others. Maybe Blizz simply never thought of this method.
Warcraft 3 has this function so I don't really think that's the case
Sorry but I don't remember WC3 having that...? What do you mean?
I didn't follow WC3 but in DotA there are like, periodic pauses for saves that can be loaded later.
And AFAIK this tech isn't something new. I remember clicking around like an idiot in AOE2 while watching "recorded games" and I end up controlling the units + production facilities. Might be a bug or it could be intentional, but I never bothered to find out.
I remember that from AOE 2. For me at least it was super buggy, though. and would crash the program a lot... so maybe not the best example.
This could be used in some pretty neat ways. Say you felt like a game was going really well, but you made a decision that you think lost it. Get the other guy to go back, make the alternate decision, and see how it plays out. Could be cool.
Well, I am not going to try it, but it sounds like a simple thing to actually do. I hope that Blizzard finally implements something along these lines to prevent what happened this weekend.
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.
Of course it's a simple thing to actually do, blizz already has a fricking replay engine that allows you to go to any point in a game and see the exact game state. THAT would be the hard bit to program; allowing players to 'load' at an arbitrary point during a replay instead of the beginning of a game is, in comparison, "hello world".
Personally, I don't have use for this. It's obviously not useful on ladder until blizz does it themselves, and if I want to practice with a friend I will use 'SALT' instead (which isn't quite the same thing, I know). However, as "a demonstration of how easy it is to implement technically" it is superb work, well done.
On April 13 2012 14:14 Severian wrote: Pfft. In the time it took you to write that program, Blizzard could have easily made chat windows resizable in both the x and y dimensions.
I almost spit my drink all over my monitor when I read this.
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.
Wow, awesome job. This could easily be adapted to save tournament games, given Blizzard's consent of course... To all the skeptics: He posted the source code... if you don't trust it then look at the source and build it yourself or wait for someone else to do it for you. Just took a look myself and it seems fine. Building it now.
On April 13 2012 15:20 Dalguno wrote: This could be used in some pretty neat ways. Say you felt like a game was going really well, but you made a decision that you think lost it. Get the other guy to go back, make the alternate decision, and see how it plays out. Could be cool.
I think it would be funnier if done on the ladder. PM some random guy after a game and be like "Nono wait a second let me try that again"
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?
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.
I've tried it out. I really can't believe it works. Basically it just plays out the replay really fast while you have control. So you can move 1 drone and it breaks the rest of the playback.
I'm not sure how it works with multiplayer. Do 2 people use the program at once or what?
On April 13 2012 14:31 jeeneeus wrote: Well hasn't SALT been out for a while? Blizzard hasn't done anything regarding using this function.
SALT doesn't save things like spells or larva count. This doesn't need a special map and can be used retroactively. We could even play back MKP VS Parting in a $500 showmatch to see who would really have won the game.
If this program works as intended, it will mean to me that Blizzard are just lazy. No LAN, no online replays with friends, limited chat channel functions, etc.
On April 13 2012 15:56 DeltruS wrote: I've tried it out. I really can't believe it works. Basically it just plays out the replay really fast while you have control. So you can move 1 drone and it breaks the rest of the playback.
I'm not sure how it works with multiplayer. Do 2 people use the program at once or what?
On April 13 2012 14:31 jeeneeus wrote: Well hasn't SALT been out for a while? Blizzard hasn't done anything regarding using this function.
SALT doesn't save things like spells or larva count. This doesn't need a special map and can be used retroactively. We could even play back MKP VS Parting in a $500 showmatch to see who would really have won the game.
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.
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 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.)
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 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?
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
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.
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).
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).
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.
I tested it out with another player named SilentCF. We both had the "Resume Game" button pressed and we both had the same replay selected and same start time. SilentCF's computer wasn't as good as mine or something because he lagged like crazy while the replay ran at 40x speed.
End result: We loaded 15 mins into a 20 min ZvZ on daybreak. It took around 10s after 15 mins for the lag to clear down, but after that everything ran fine and we could have continued the match.
There were no hotkeys and all the previous move commands were still active so units were running everywhere.
We tried doing a game on Shakuras but the rep broke. It might have been because we started at different start positions compared to the replay.
Ok what the fuck? This is actually huge. People have been requesting this for years. It has massive implications, not only for reconnect situations but also for training purposes. Being able to replay the same situation over and over making small alterations each time to find the most optimal response, this is incredible.
I can't believe it's apparently so simple to implement. What the fuck have Blizzard being doing all this time?
How awesome some people are.. First post "Hey guys, wrote a little program. Should be the solution to the whole.. you know.. disc problem. Anyway, gotta go. hf!"
On April 13 2012 17:23 DeltruS wrote: We tried doing a game on Shakuras but the rep broke. It might have been because we started at different start positions compared to the replay.
Yeah I think I encountered something similar to this in one replay. I'm not sure whether that's due to not setting up the custom game correctly (eg order of players in the player list, or who is the host) or if it's something that the author needs to correct. I also didn't think to check the hotkeys. I have no idea if that kind of information can be retrieved via this method.
edit:
On April 13 2012 17:27 bovi wrote: well done. this can be done even without the reply am i correct? just like how HoN resumes disconnects.
No, all players need the replay and the program. It's not technically resuming, because the original game session is lost. You're just creating a new session and replicating all of the actions up to a point.
His lag affected me at the same time, and we both could chat during the speedy replay, so does this mean that the "Watch replays with friends feature" is implemented but only for extreme speeds and single person view?
On April 13 2012 17:34 DeltruS wrote: His lag affected me at the same time, and we both could chat during the speedy replay, so does this mean that the "Watch replays with friends feature" is implemented but only for extreme speeds and single person view?
And you need as many people as were in the game and no more. It's possible that the same principle could lead to shared replay viewing, though, I think.
So basically this would allow me to play a game vs friend and then if I do 1 stupid mistake and lose because of it, I can just start from that point onwards so that I don't have to spend another 20+minutes to actually test build order? We can just repeat some engagement like that and practice.
This needs to go on blizzard forums, so that we can hear from some GM is this considered hacking for ban and if blizzard can implement something official.
MLG staff could have used something like this at Columbus, I am pretty sure two of the games played involved disconnects. One may have featured Grubby in one from memory in a game that could have gone either way but had to be replayed from scratch.
I appreciate your effort but showing it to Blizzard or TL will not change anything, they already know how to do it, but don`t want to bother, we can`t influence (much). One thing that might pressure blizzard is showing this to tournament organizers, who tend to get bad publicity after disconnects such as GOM, MLG, IEM. If they saw how relatively easy is to implement it they could influence Blizzard to implement it, I hope.
Blizzard's response to this would probably be banning people that are using this because it "breaks the TOS" but really they are just using that as an excuse so they dont have to implement this and to save face.
On April 13 2012 17:25 JohnMatrix wrote: wow the potential of training on a point of a game seems insane with this feature O_o.
Resuming play at a certain point has been available for quite some time, search TL for SALT and you'll find maps where you can save and load.
Also, people in this topic are stupid, why whine about virus etc when the source code was posted? It's open source, it's obviously not going to be a virus.
It would also be nice to analyze replays with friends. "Hey, I think I could win at 9:00 if I only did this" "Really? Let's resume the game at this point and find out!" ":D" ":D"
It would be so awesome learning tool. And useful in tournaments too! So what, petition time?:D
The possible implications are even bigger than it seems, 2 players can grind certain unusual situations in game to perfect it, you can train 100 various ways to defend particular cheese or you can jump to some tournament game and play it out, even more you can judge and even critisizice some pro players play in their matches by showing different ways of doing something.
Blizzard banning players for using this program would be cutting their own leg, this tool provides more utility than whole battle net system when it comes to training. You dont need to play 100 custom games to learn something, you can perform an opening and start games after this when you only need particular segment to train.
On April 13 2012 17:54 JohnMatrix wrote: Why they would not implemented it ? it would solve a lot of bash they get to not put LAN in their game and won't affect at all their business model
They were going to advertise HOTS with "feature to reconnect games even if players d/c"
I suggest that the mods put a tag at the top of the post that says that this has a small chance of getting you banned, even though I doubt warden is scanning for this and it would be stupid for blizzard to make warden start scanning for this. This could be a huge program, like game changing. I don't know because I don't really want to test it right now, but could i take someone elses replay and play it or does it have to be the 2 original players?
On April 13 2012 17:25 JohnMatrix wrote: wow the potential of training on a point of a game seems insane with this feature O_o.
Resuming play at a certain point has been available for quite some time, search TL for SALT and you'll find maps where you can save and load.
Also, people in this topic are stupid, why whine about virus etc when the source code was posted? It's open source, it's obviously not going to be a virus.
SALT requires you to save the game before you can load it again. if you DC, i doubt you'll have the opportunity to save it
On April 13 2012 17:57 Corrosive wrote: I suggest that the mods put a tag at the top of the post that says that this has a small chance of getting you banned, even though I doubt warden is scanning for this and it would be stupid for blizzard to make warden start scanning for this. This could be a huge program, like game changing. I don't know because I don't really want to test it right now, but could i take someone elses replay and play it or does it have to be the 2 original players?
Yes, it works on other peoples' replays. I haven't tried it but presumably you could jump into games from MLG, for example.
On April 13 2012 17:57 Corrosive wrote: I suggest that the mods put a tag at the top of the post that says that this has a small chance of getting you banned, even though I doubt warden is scanning for this and it would be stupid for blizzard to make warden start scanning for this. This could be a huge program, like game changing. I don't know because I don't really want to test it right now, but could i take someone elses replay and play it or does it have to be the 2 original players?
Yes, it works on other peoples' replays. I haven't tried it but presumably you could jump into games from MLG, for example.
You should post it on the Bnet forums so it may catch Blizzard's attention. Then they might see that they should make something similar. (after closing the thread ofc, cuz ur posting 3rd party programs :D, but at least u get their attention)
On April 13 2012 18:09 imPermanenCe wrote: You should post it on the Bnet forums so it may catch Blizzard's attention. Then they might see that they should make something similar. (after closing the thread ofc, cuz ur posting 3rd party programs :D, but at least u get their attention)
Dont worry it probably already cought their attention
By the way, you can test this in Guest mode as well (Single Player > Play vs AI), works fine. So you can test without worrying about getting banned by Warden etc...
On April 13 2012 17:54 JohnMatrix wrote: Why they would not implemented it ? it would solve a lot of bash they get to not put LAN in their game and won't affect at all their business model
They were going to advertise HOTS with "feature to reconnect games even if players d/c"
They will also do 1 year after LotV, $20 DLC for LAN feature!
Not to rain on this parade.. as it's an awesome tool if its all legit, But.... There should be a way to limit the replay function to only games that match the logged in account name and code. Otherwise what is to stop someone loading up a replay under someone else's name.. typing a bunch of racist BM or something, and then using it to start a shitstorm. I'm sure if Blizzard implement this type of thing that won't be possible because using someone elses ID is somewhat against the ToS..
Unless when you load a replay it inserts your name when you type etc. (which I can't see it doing)
I imagined a suggestion thread when I saw the title in the sidebar, and I was thinking up a reply along the lines of "what a pointless thread, go make it yourself and stop complaining >.<"
But turns out it actually is that somebody who already made it. Wow thank you so much, this is incredible work you've done. <3 <3 <3
On April 13 2012 18:22 Gingerninja wrote: Not to rain on this parade.. as it's an awesome tool if its all legit, But.... There should be a way to limit the replay function to only games that match the logged in account name and code. Otherwise what is to stop someone loading up a replay under someone else's name.. typing a bunch of racist BM or something, and then using it to start a shitstorm. I'm sure if Blizzard implement this type of thing that won't be possible because using someone elses ID is somewhat against the ToS..
Unless when you load a replay it inserts your name when you type etc. (which I can't see it doing)
You can edit replays easily... any text editor will do. This program "could" do that but why bother with much easier options available
Awesome concept. Blizzard seriously needs to step their game up T_T
On April 13 2012 18:22 Gingerninja wrote: Not to rain on this parade.. as it's an awesome tool if its all legit, But.... There should be a way to limit the replay function to only games that match the logged in account name and code. Otherwise what is to stop someone loading up a replay under someone else's name.. typing a bunch of racist BM or something, and then using it to start a shitstorm. I'm sure if Blizzard implement this type of thing that won't be possible because using someone elses ID is somewhat against the ToS..
Unless when you load a replay it inserts your name when you type etc. (which I can't see it doing)
Or you can just edit the replay file and insert chat commands with any of the numerous tools available to do so already. A lot of replay sites add "downloaded from X" to the replays, it's really not hard to do
On April 13 2012 18:22 Gingerninja wrote: Not to rain on this parade.. as it's an awesome tool if its all legit, But.... There should be a way to limit the replay function to only games that match the logged in account name and code. Otherwise what is to stop someone loading up a replay under someone else's name.. typing a bunch of racist BM or something, and then using it to start a shitstorm. I'm sure if Blizzard implement this type of thing that won't be possible because using someone elses ID is somewhat against the ToS..
Unless when you load a replay it inserts your name when you type etc. (which I can't see it doing)
You can edit replays easily... any text editor will do. This program "could" do that but why bother with much easier options available
Awesome concept. Blizzard seriously needs to step their game up T_T
Ah yeah, forgot about that. It's been months since I saw that kind of spam thing, you used to see it a lot on casted replays on youtube, but not much recently. I retract my worry.
As long as people don't get banned using it, then this is an awesome tool. Goes to show the community could look after the game itself even without blizzard. (tbh we could patch the game ourselves using the editor too, if it ever got to that.)
On April 13 2012 18:22 Gingerninja wrote: Not to rain on this parade.. as it's an awesome tool if its all legit, But.... There should be a way to limit the replay function to only games that match the logged in account name and code. Otherwise what is to stop someone loading up a replay under someone else's name.. typing a bunch of racist BM or something, and then using it to start a shitstorm. I'm sure if Blizzard implement this type of thing that won't be possible because using someone elses ID is somewhat against the ToS..
Unless when you load a replay it inserts your name when you type etc. (which I can't see it doing)
It does do that. Any text that was typed in the original game, and any text that you type yourself, appears with your name (or the name of the person who is joining the replay with you). For all intents and purposes that I can see (eg chat, score screen, match history, etc) it replaces the original players with yourselves.
edit: while testing this I discovered what could be considered to be a bug. Chat from the replay is inserted into the game even past the resume point. Not really a big problem for its intended use but it's probably not desirable.
On April 13 2012 17:55 bgx wrote: The possible implications are even bigger than it seems, 2 players can grind certain unusual situations in game to perfect it, you can train 100 various ways to defend particular cheese or you can jump to some tournament game and play it out, even more you can judge and even critisizice some pro players play in their matches by showing different ways of doing something.
Blizzard banning players for using this program would be cutting their own leg, this tool provides more utility than whole battle net system when it comes to training. You dont need to play 100 custom games to learn something, you can perform an opening and start games after this when you only need particular segment to train.
Again, you can use SALT maps for this, which unlike this tool, doesn't do injections and thus isn't considered a hack by Blizzard standards.
On April 13 2012 18:36 cravin74 wrote: can you download a pro replay and relive the scenario for yourself?
Yes but you'll need someone else to take over for the other player. You can't just play one side and have the ghost of MMA or the computer control the other side, for example (I think it technically would be possible to alter the tool to have the other client keep inputting the replay's actions, but nearly any deviation by yourself would make their actions nonsensical. You might be able to play against a 2-base all-in as executed by MC, but at the point that his units interact with yours (ie the attack happens) nothing would make sense). So you won't be able to practise against MKP's marine splitting.
I've only glanced at the source code, but I really want to clear up some serious confusions I'm reading in this thread. First off it's totally NOT a hack or cheat of any kind. It takes advantage of the fact that as long as players agree on the synchronized game state the game will stay alive.
Also I saw someone defending Blizzard for not implementing this because the guy that made this "might know something they don't". That's really odd to say considering they have the source code to the game and he had to reverse engineer the entire thing. They could have added this feature easily since they have the entire blueprint of the game. He has a very very narrow view of the source code that is cryptic and extremely hard to understand. For example:
void*game = (void*)0x16C8C40;
What the hell is that? Who knows. Blizzard doesn't even need to know this because they have the source code to the objects and aren't concerned with their location in memory. This guy had to find out where that is, along with everything else. Seriously need to respect the fact that he's doing this with pokes and prods at bytes while Blizzard can't do this with a team of hundreds of developers, millions of dollars, and the original source code / blueprint. Another good example is:
(void*&)f = vftable[31];
Here he's calling "Function #31" essentialy. Blizzard probably has a really nice and simple name for this function, and a description of all it's arguments and how it works. He knows it's Function #31 and has to read the assembly code to determine how it may work.
The only thing that could be considered a "hack" could be how the random seed can be overridden:
Maybe for custom games the random seed isn't created by BNet and as long as the game state hash matches the players will not de-synchronize.
Not counting the basic glue needed to make any Windows program and hook into the Starcraft process, StormLib, MPQ, etc. the whole thing is done in about 300 lines of code. Impressive!
Interesting tool, but I think Blizzard would not like it for one reason - the injects. Because it's actually not playing a replay, so much as it's playing a custom game at high speed while replicating all of the actions both players took (using the replay as a script) until it hits a certain point, then it stops and you take over.
Great for what the OP created it for. Seriously, badass. But unintended consequence - you can also use it (with modifications, since the OP gave us the source for it) to create a bot which will play the game. Imagine if you could start a game, then let this take over and have an absolutely perfect starting build order/opener. This is the part where blizzard gets unhappy - it's using essentially bannable botting techniques for good. Which means with a little bit of reprogramming, it can be used for evil. I like what it offers, and think it's a great proof of concept - Blizzard has really no excuse for not being able to offer this kind of functionality from within the client over bnet in an approved and secure way. But I think Blizzard will be very skeptical of it, and probably treat it exactly the same as a maphack/bothack because it is using the same techniques.
Also... someone mentioned "It can't be a virus, it's open source!" Umm... lots of virus programs are open source, worked on as a collaborative effort. It's just that it'd be a real tough thing to hide when you've got the source to read through and compile on your own. Plus, just because the source posted isn't viral, doesn't mean that tempting binary might not be! (I'm not saying it is, just that I would rather people be cautious than trusting - I have been the IT Helpdesk before, and just a touch more paranoia makes all of our lives easier.)
On April 13 2012 18:47 kayrice wrote: I've only glanced at the source code, but I really want to clear up some serious confusions I'm reading in this thread. First off it's totally NOT a hack or cheat of any kind. It takes advantage of the fact that as long as players agree on the synchronized game state the game will stay alive.
Also I saw someone defending Blizzard for not implementing this because the guy that made this "might know something they don't". That's really odd to say considering they have the source code to the game and he had to reverse engineer the entire thing. They could have added this feature easily since they have the entire blueprint of the game. He has a very very narrow view of the source code that is cryptic and extremely hard to understand. For example:
What the hell is that? Who knows. Blizzard doesn't even need to know this because they have the source code to the objects and aren't concerned with their location in memory. This guy had to find out where that is, along with everything else. Seriously need to respect the fact that he's doing this with pokes and prods at bytes while Blizzard can't do this with a team of hundreds of developers, millions of dollars, and the original source code / blueprint. Another good example is:
Here he's calling "Function #31" essentialy. Blizzard probably has a really nice and simple name for this function, and a description of all it's arguments and how it works. He knows it's Function #31 and has to read the assembly code to determine how it may work.
The only thing that could be considered a "hack" could be how the random seed can be overridden:
Maybe for custom games the random seed isn't created by BNet and as long as the game state hash matches the players will not de-synchronize.
Not counting the basic glue needed to make any Windows program and hook into the Starcraft process, StormLib, MPQ, etc. the whole thing is done in about 300 lines of code. Impressive!
*Hats off*
I totally agree. I have said a couple times that it should be easy for blizzard to implement something similar. I will definately take a look at the source code when I get back home
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.
On April 13 2012 14:34 Gorkon wrote: Using an unauthorized program would probably incur a Bnet ban, so I'll just wait until Blizzard creates their own similar feature. Good idea, though. Sins of a Solar Empire has a feature that lets you resume multi-player games, and it works quite well. I'm sure Blizzard is working on it.
Even Age of Empires had a save function for multiplayer games.. It's nothing new really.
Does anyone know what happens if the next game you play is a ladder game? Does it crash or what?
I have not tried yet but my assumption is BNet is much less liberal with the random seed in ladder games. War3 didnt use BNet in custom games and was very loose with custom games as they were direct to IP. I think the random seed not being strictly enforced is because BNet isn't actually playing the game state out (to save resources) and as long as the peers trust each other / agree on the game state they won't drop it.
With ladder games they are playing the game state out and if you change the random seed I would expect a desync.
Even Age of Empires had a save function for multiplayer games.. It's nothing new really.
Does anyone know of another game that has a rolling save feature like this? One where you don't have to explicitly save and can resume at different times?
On April 13 2012 18:47 kayrice wrote: I've only glanced at the source code, but I really want to clear up some serious confusions I'm reading in this thread. First off it's totally NOT a hack or cheat of any kind. It takes advantage of the fact that as long as players agree on the synchronized game state the game will stay alive.
Also I saw someone defending Blizzard for not implementing this because the guy that made this "might know something they don't". That's really odd to say considering they have the source code to the game and he had to reverse engineer the entire thing. They could have added this feature easily since they have the entire blueprint of the game. He has a very very narrow view of the source code that is cryptic and extremely hard to understand. For example:
What the hell is that? Who knows. Blizzard doesn't even need to know this because they have the source code to the objects and aren't concerned with their location in memory. This guy had to find out where that is, along with everything else. Seriously need to respect the fact that he's doing this with pokes and prods at bytes while Blizzard can't do this with a team of hundreds of developers, millions of dollars, and the original source code / blueprint. Another good example is:
Here he's calling "Function #31" essentialy. Blizzard probably has a really nice and simple name for this function, and a description of all it's arguments and how it works. He knows it's Function #31 and has to read the assembly code to determine how it may work.
The only thing that could be considered a "hack" could be how the random seed can be overridden:
Maybe for custom games the random seed isn't created by BNet and as long as the game state hash matches the players will not de-synchronize.
Not counting the basic glue needed to make any Windows program and hook into the Starcraft process, StormLib, MPQ, etc. the whole thing is done in about 300 lines of code. Impressive!
*Hats off*
agreed ^^ as a CS student this is really respectable work, has impressed me as well.
Does anyone know what happens if the next game you play is a ladder game? Does it crash or what?
I have not tried yet but my assumption is BNet is much less liberal with the random seed in ladder games. War3 didnt use BNet in custom games and was very loose with custom games as they were direct to IP. I think the random seed not being strictly enforced is because BNet isn't actually playing the game state out (to save resources) and as long as the peers trust each other / agree on the game state they won't drop it.
With ladder games they are playing the game state out and if you change the random seed I would expect a desync.
Ah ok, I can imagine that using this program and then accidentally entering a ladder game could quite easily be misinterpreted as someone using a hack, hopefully that won't cause problems :/
On April 13 2012 14:34 Gorkon wrote: Using an unauthorized program would probably incur a Bnet ban, so I'll just wait until Blizzard creates their own similar feature. Good idea, though. Sins of a Solar Empire has a feature that lets you resume multi-player games, and it works quite well. I'm sure Blizzard is working on it.
Even Age of Empires had a save function for multiplayer games.. It's nothing new really.
Thats some futuristic stuff your talking about, technology isnt there yet ! they said so
On April 13 2012 18:50 felisconcolori wrote: Interesting tool, but I think Blizzard would not like it for one reason - the injects. Because it's actually not playing a replay, so much as it's playing a custom game at high speed while replicating all of the actions both players took (using the replay as a script) until it hits a certain point, then it stops and you take over.
Not entirely, and I apologise because this misconception might have stemmed from my description of how it works. The program itself does not inject any actions into the game. Instead, the program simply "forces" SC2 to play the replay, even though it's in a custom game. All of the "at this time in the replay player 1 moved this unit, so now i'm going to move this unit" stuff is handled by SC2 itself through the very same functions that are used when you load up a replay. The only difference is that those functions are being activated inside of a playable game, rather than the replay viewer. So instead of all of those unit movements and actions and such affecting a replay state that you cannot affect in any way, only observe, they affect the current playable game state. In a very real sense it is actually playing a replay, just on a different stage than usual.
On April 13 2012 18:50 felisconcolori wrote: Great for what the OP created it for. Seriously, badass. But unintended consequence - you can also use it (with modifications, since the OP gave us the source for it) to create a bot which will play the game. Imagine if you could start a game, then let this take over and have an absolutely perfect starting build order/opener. This is the part where blizzard gets unhappy - it's using essentially bannable botting techniques for good. Which means with a little bit of reprogramming, it can be used for evil. I like what it offers, and think it's a great proof of concept - Blizzard has really no excuse for not being able to offer this kind of functionality from within the client over bnet in an approved and secure way. But I think Blizzard will be very skeptical of it, and probably treat it exactly the same as a maphack/bothack because it is using the same techniques.
In an attempt to see if this were possible, I altered the program to move through the replay at normal speed instead of super speed. I then ran it only on one of my clients while both started a custom game. Immediately upon the game loading, both clients hit a Desync window and had to exit. So I'm not sure if it is possible to use this technique to automate one client without the other's permission.
edit: this might have something to do with the program changing the RNG seed. Perhaps if you didn't change it there might not be a desync, but then the automation may not work properly due to variance.
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.
it's not incompetence. Stop being ignorant. Go learn some basics of computer science so you have some common sense on the issue or don't post.
Did you completely miss the posts I made further in the thread?
Ah ok, I can imagine that using this program and then accidentally entering a ladder game could quite easily be misinterpreted as someone using a hack, hopefully that won't cause problems :/
I would imagine with how locked down BNet is now-a-days any dsync is flagged. However they are likely aware that the process is hooked and have a CRC32 or similar hash of the shared libraries and binaries that are hooking into the process. They did this with other games with the "Warden" system. They can't assume anything hooking into the process is a hack as there are a wide range of programs that do this, such as (ironically) anti-virus programs.
As Blizzard gets more flags they will make their choice to flag this as a hack or not.
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.
it's not incompetence. Stop being ignorant. Go learn some basics of computer science so you have some common sense on the issue or don't post.
Did you completely miss the posts I made further in the thread?
What, did you contradict yourself later? If so my mistake for calling you out, otherwise it doesn't matter. It's a highly silly viewpoint to think blizzard couldn't write code to do the same thing if they wanted to.
Anyways on a side note I'm not detracting from the OP, like I said earlier it's impressive that he wrote it.
Pathetic that there can't be a thread without fucking blizzard bashing.
So guys at Blizzard go to work every day a week, sit infront of their computers for 8 hours "working" and we get laughable amount of promised features 2 years after release. Im curious, what exactly do they fucking do, especially because Browder said for a million things such as shared replay viewing or clan features that they "love the idea and are looking into it and its definitely on their to do list". But I guess first on that list is what than? Modeling 5 units that they managed to come up within one year? Blizzard DOTA?
-Hey guise i tell em we look into ther ideas haha! -Oh dustin yu epic troll you!
-Promises tons of features; clan support, shared replay viewing, custom game interface, arcade, removing ip blacklisting for tournaments, better chat and social features, name changes, implementing user maps in ladder, all kinds of balance promises. -Gives none of those in two years.
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.
it's not incompetence. Stop being ignorant. Go learn some basics of computer science so you have some common sense on the issue or don't post.
Did you completely miss the posts I made further in the thread?
What, did you contradict yourself later? If so my mistake for calling you out, otherwise it doesn't matter. It's a highly silly viewpoint to think blizzard couldn't write code to do the same thing if they wanted to.
Anyways on a side note I'm not detracting from the OP, like I said earlier it's impressive that he wrote it.
Pathetic that there can't be a thread without fucking blizzard bashing.
I use to hold back from Blizzard bashing, but in this case a little is called for. If they had written the game in a way that made this hard/impossible to implement then sure. What the guy proves is that it's possible in the framework of the game to do it.
The bashing comes from the fact that compared to LoL, DotA2 (I don't know about HoN) a disconnected player means a pause until the other player can reconnect, not a massive black stain against the finals of a major tournament which induces a couple of hundred pages of ranting, hate, bashing, ambiguity and throws the legitimacy of a result in doubt.
Answer I was expecting. Maybe you should stop trying to have a logical discussion considering you have no viewpoint?
Seems someones jealous that they spent 10 years in school and lack any talent in the actual field.
You obviously have zero experience with applying your knowledge. So your viewpoint is worthless. Sad when a typical graduate has such unsound rationality, but I guess it's expected to have an influx of those individuals in an ever growing field.
Obviously if blizzard wrote the code it would only take them a few days in writing the same thing. They would continue to spend 10x+ that amount of time making sure it's perfect, because anything else would be under their standard. Your lack of understanding of this basic concept in programming tells me your degree is fallacious in nature.
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.
it's not incompetence. Stop being ignorant. Go learn some basics of computer science so you have some common sense on the issue or don't post.
Did you completely miss the posts I made further in the thread?
What, did you contradict yourself later? If so my mistake for calling you out, otherwise it doesn't matter. It's a highly silly viewpoint to think blizzard couldn't write code to do the same thing if they wanted to.
Anyways on a side note I'm not detracting from the OP, like I said earlier it's impressive that he wrote it.
Pathetic that there can't be a thread without fucking blizzard bashing.
Are you trying to troll? If anything, my later posts contradict your initial claim. And I clearly said Blizzard is either lazy or incompetent. They can be skillfully competent and lazy for all I know. What I do know is that someone created a proof of concept clearly showing how simple and feasible it is. On the other hand, convince me that Blizzard's decision making is perfect and all knowing.
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.
it's not incompetence. Stop being ignorant. Go learn some basics of computer science so you have some common sense on the issue or don't post.
Did you completely miss the posts I made further in the thread?
What, did you contradict yourself later? If so my mistake for calling you out, otherwise it doesn't matter. It's a highly silly viewpoint to think blizzard couldn't write code to do the same thing if they wanted to.
Anyways on a side note I'm not detracting from the OP, like I said earlier it's impressive that he wrote it.
Pathetic that there can't be a thread without fucking blizzard bashing.
Are you trying to troll? If anything, my later posts contradict your initial claim. And I clearly said Blizzard is either lazy or incompetent. They can be skillfully competent and lazy for all I know. What I do know is that someone created a proof of concept clearly showing how simple and feasible it is. On the other hand, convince me that Blizzard's decision making is perfect and all knowing.
There are some other options, maybe they just chose not to include this feature. Maybe this feature is on the bottom of their priorities. When developing software its not exactly easy to deal with all requirements and keep everyone happy.
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.
it's not incompetence. Stop being ignorant. Go learn some basics of computer science so you have some common sense on the issue or don't post.
Did you completely miss the posts I made further in the thread?
What, did you contradict yourself later? If so my mistake for calling you out, otherwise it doesn't matter. It's a highly silly viewpoint to think blizzard couldn't write code to do the same thing if they wanted to.
Anyways on a side note I'm not detracting from the OP, like I said earlier it's impressive that he wrote it.
Pathetic that there can't be a thread without fucking blizzard bashing.
Are you trying to troll? If anything, my later posts contradict your initial claim. And I clearly said Blizzard is either lazy or incompetent. They can be skillfully competent and lazy for all I know. What I do know is that someone created a proof of concept clearly showing how simple and feasible it is. On the other hand, convince me that Blizzard's decision making is perfect and all knowing.
Here's blizzard's decision making buddy: Make money.
They do that by making HOTS and Blizzard Dota. Not from implementing random features. Should be pretty straightforward.
Seems someones jealous that they spent 10 years in school and lack any talent in the actual field.
You don't notice that you've slowly given up any logical position and incrementally translated into attacking me personally? I would be offended if it wasn't so transparent.
You obviously have zero experience with applying your knowledge. So your viewpoint is worthless. Sad when a typical graduate has such unsound rationality, but I guess it's expected to have an influx of those individuals in an ever growing field.
Nice. You don't even know what field I'm in, and assume I have never applied my knowledge in this unknown field. You haven't backed anything up or held a rational opinion at all - you just say your right and others are wrong and then bash them.
Obviously if blizzard wrote the code it would only take them a few days in writing the same thing
Exhibited by them implementing it within the last 2 years of the game...
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.
it's not incompetence. Stop being ignorant. Go learn some basics of computer science so you have some common sense on the issue or don't post.
Did you completely miss the posts I made further in the thread?
What, did you contradict yourself later? If so my mistake for calling you out, otherwise it doesn't matter. It's a highly silly viewpoint to think blizzard couldn't write code to do the same thing if they wanted to.
Anyways on a side note I'm not detracting from the OP, like I said earlier it's impressive that he wrote it.
Pathetic that there can't be a thread without fucking blizzard bashing.
Are you trying to troll? If anything, my later posts contradict your initial claim. And I clearly said Blizzard is either lazy or incompetent. They can be skillfully competent and lazy for all I know. What I do know is that someone created a proof of concept clearly showing how simple and feasible it is. On the other hand, convince me that Blizzard's decision making is perfect and all knowing.
There are some other options, maybe they just chose not to include this feature. Maybe this feature is on the bottom of their priorities. When developing software its not exactly easy to deal with all requirements and keep everyone happy.
Hence why I also implied in a previous post that incompetence can be extended to decision making.
you really think blizzard is too incompetent to write this?
Judging by the high demand and lack of implementation with the abundance of resources, what would you classify it as other than incompetence?
I dunno Mr. Master's degree, enlighten a poor undergraduate CS student such as myself since you seem to know so much more than one of the largest gaming companies.
You are obviously either looking for a fight or just..I dont even know to be honest, you'd need a doctor to look at you at least. What he is saying is that it is incompetent of them to implement this. NOT that they are not ABLE to! How hard is that to understand?
Hey, weren't we talking about this tool and what it does and/or how it works? While I am not trying it, I am excited for the possibilities of it. Anyone found any bugs or issues as of yet?
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.
it's not incompetence. Stop being ignorant. Go learn some basics of computer science so you have some common sense on the issue or don't post.
Did you completely miss the posts I made further in the thread?
What, did you contradict yourself later? If so my mistake for calling you out, otherwise it doesn't matter. It's a highly silly viewpoint to think blizzard couldn't write code to do the same thing if they wanted to.
Anyways on a side note I'm not detracting from the OP, like I said earlier it's impressive that he wrote it.
Pathetic that there can't be a thread without fucking blizzard bashing.
Are you trying to troll? If anything, my later posts contradict your initial claim. And I clearly said Blizzard is either lazy or incompetent. They can be skillfully competent and lazy for all I know. What I do know is that someone created a proof of concept clearly showing how simple and feasible it is. On the other hand, convince me that Blizzard's decision making is perfect and all knowing.
Here's blizzard's decision making buddy: Make money.
They do that by making HOTS and Blizzard Dota. Not from implementing random features. Should be pretty straightforward.
So call them greedy but not incompetent and settle it ok? Useless discussion.
On April 13 2012 14:34 Gorkon wrote: Using an unauthorized program would probably incur a Bnet ban, so I'll just wait until Blizzard creates their own similar feature. Good idea, though. Sins of a Solar Empire has a feature that lets you resume multi-player games, and it works quite well. I'm sure Blizzard is working on it.
Even Age of Empires had a save function for multiplayer games.. It's nothing new really.
Holy shit.. yes it did! Even the star wars knock off based on the same engine (galactic battlegrounds) let you save a multiplayer game mid way through, and come back to it later on.
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.
there are multiple meanings of "hack" you know.
It's still a 3rd party program that Blizzard doesn't approve of
I'm sorry, how do you know they don't approve? They approve of other third parties like stronger team colour... This isn't harming anyone, relax.
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.
it's not incompetence. Stop being ignorant. Go learn some basics of computer science so you have some common sense on the issue or don't post.
Did you completely miss the posts I made further in the thread?
What, did you contradict yourself later? If so my mistake for calling you out, otherwise it doesn't matter. It's a highly silly viewpoint to think blizzard couldn't write code to do the same thing if they wanted to.
Anyways on a side note I'm not detracting from the OP, like I said earlier it's impressive that he wrote it.
Pathetic that there can't be a thread without fucking blizzard bashing.
Are you trying to troll? If anything, my later posts contradict your initial claim. And I clearly said Blizzard is either lazy or incompetent. They can be skillfully competent and lazy for all I know. What I do know is that someone created a proof of concept clearly showing how simple and feasible it is. On the other hand, convince me that Blizzard's decision making is perfect and all knowing.
Here's blizzard's decision making buddy: Make money.
They do that by making HOTS and Blizzard Dota. Not from implementing random features. Should be pretty straightforward.
It's not a random feature. It's important to the community and to the legitimacy of the sport as evidenced by the public outrage. Are you somehow religiously committed to anything Blizzard does? Can Blizzard do anything wrong?
I would say this feature does qualify as a monetary interest. Obviously Blizzard has resources they are utilizing on SC2: WoL as they make changes to the game still with frequency. They work closely and have an interest in the competitive scene which has been effected by this. I'm not trying to bash Blizzard, but when they drop the ball you have to be honest and call it like you see it.
you really think blizzard is too incompetent to write this?
Judging by the high demand and lack of implementation with the abundance of resources, what would you classify it as other than incompetence?
I dunno Mr. Master's degree, enlighten a poor undergraduate CS student such as myself since you seem to know so much more than one of the largest gaming companies.
You are obviously either looking for a fight or just..I dont even know to be honest, you'd need a doctor to look at you at least. What he is saying is that it is incompetent of them to implement this. NOT that they are not ABLE to! How hard is that to understand?
Yeah I need a doctor because I'm willing to defend a gaming company that has proven themselves over the past 20 years over posters who say they "know" what they're talking about.
What ignorance, I can't see how game developers put up with it. It's probably why they don't waste time trying to please the community coding these types of things.
It's obvious that if one guy can do it, then hundred of professional programmer who are working for one of the biggest gaming company in the world (whom made the game) should be able to implement this feature with no troubles at all. The question is, why aren't they doing it?
I never claimed I "know" what I'm talking about. I presented logical arguments that reinforce my position. I could see how you arrived at the conclusion I know what I'm talking about though and thanks for the freudian complement.
It's probably why they don't waste time trying to please the community coding these types of things.
So wait, is the reason they don't implement it because they could do so easily or because of they don't want to "waste their time trying pleasing the community". You change your argument every time someone exposes it, and at this point I don't think you even know what your position is
EDIT: Agreed that regardless of this being adopted by the mainline client it's a great proof of concept and excellent work by TheSuperCow. It's in the hands of the community to decide how important this is and it's adoption will likely signal Blizzard to either allow it, roll it in the main client, or ban folks who use it.
you really think blizzard is too incompetent to write this?
Judging by the high demand and lack of implementation with the abundance of resources, what would you classify it as other than incompetence?
I dunno Mr. Master's degree, enlighten a poor undergraduate CS student such as myself since you seem to know so much more than one of the largest gaming companies.
You are obviously either looking for a fight or just..I dont even know to be honest, you'd need a doctor to look at you at least. What he is saying is that it is incompetent of them to implement this. NOT that they are not ABLE to! How hard is that to understand?
Yeah I need a doctor because I'm willing to defend a gaming company that has proven themselves over the past 20 years over posters who say they "know" what they're talking about.
What ignorance, I can't see how game developers put up with it. It's probably why they don't waste time trying to please the community coding these types of things.
This thread is about existing proof against what you say, cant you see that?
On April 13 2012 19:47 FunnyPicture wrote: Looks like a cool concept. I will post it on BNET forums and get some reactions.
when u do, post a link to the post please. Also remember to give the author credit so people dont get the idea you made it. Have seen a lot of people doing this mistake lol.
practicing certain things just literally got 10000% easier. I'm sitting with this expression :o in real life while typing this :D Practicing army engagements and such will be sooooooooooooooo much easier, I've wanted this FOREVER. If this is actually for real... You are my GOD.
Yeah exactly. Imagine you could load up a replay in which you weren't quite sure why you lost, and just replay the situation with a friend a couple of times.
On April 13 2012 20:24 aRRoSC2 wrote: ARE YOU ******* SERIOUS
practicing certain things just literally got 10000% easier. I'm sitting with this expression :o in real life while typing this :D Practicing army engagements and such will be sooooooooooooooo much easier, I've wanted this FOREVER. If this is actually for real... You are my GOD.
search for SALT you will find something interesting.
From my understanding of this though, it actually replays the game as it happened according to the replay. So, practicing with it would require sitting through the first however many minutes of the game every single time.
On April 13 2012 20:42 Scisyhp wrote: From my understanding of this though, it actually replays the game as it happened according to the replay. So, practicing with it would require sitting through the first however many minutes of the game every single time.
yes but what i have gathered from earlier posts the game goes at 40x speed until it hits the point specified.
someone was scared of having his main banned lol. We know its easy to implent, even without hacking the game. And i doubt Blizzard devs aren't aware that they simply could use the replays. But i guess they don't want some half ass fix to this. Or they don't see those things as top priority and i guess they concentrate on other things. Also they could implent this stuff with HotS and give some encouragement to buy HotS and not stay on WoL. But a good way to force a reaction is if official tournaments start using stuff like this, but i doubt they will do, because of the licenses.
Great piece of work this. I really hope blizzard will do something with it. Cause this would help a lot with incidences that happend in a couple of tournaments already. This will prevent couple of ''drama's''!
Interesting. That's actually a great tool for training so you just try out a specific situation instead of rolling for the whole game.
I'd be less wary to use this if you published the source code, or at least sent it to R1CH so he could say "this program is free of malwares" or something. Seriously, it isn't really easy to trust a program that injects into another program.
On April 13 2012 21:22 Zephirdd wrote: Interesting. That's actually a great tool for training so you just try out a specific situation instead of rolling for the whole game.
I'd be less wary to use this if you published the source code, or at least sent it to R1CH so he could say "this program is free of malwares" or something. Seriously, it isn't really easy to trust a program that injects into another program.
On April 13 2012 21:22 Zephirdd wrote: Interesting. That's actually a great tool for training so you just try out a specific situation instead of rolling for the whole game.
I'd be less wary to use this if you published the source code, or at least sent it to R1CH so he could say "this program is free of malwares" or something. Seriously, it isn't really easy to trust a program that injects into another program.
Eh, the source code is in the OP.
/facepalm so please disregard my comment, and I say this is fucking awesome.
Now onto studying the source code and learning to program this kind of stuff. lol!
Anyone tested it yet? I would but I am on a school computer right now haha. Will this work in offline mode against AI? Would make it easier to remain undetected and still test to see if it works.
It's a very interesting concept! I think it would be very useful especially since we had a kind of "controversial" GSTL at the last IPL. If Blizzard would implement it and give rights only to certain tournament organizers, I think this would be a great tool.
On April 13 2012 21:40 ksoewondo wrote: It's a very interesting concept! I think it would be very useful especially since we had a kind of "controversial" GSTL at the last IPL. If Blizzard would implement it and give rights only to certain tournament organizers, I think this would be a great tool.
Why should they give the rights only to tournament organizers? It would be so easy for Blizzard to implement this in a proper way without the need to copy all the moues clicks and so on...
so maybe I'm dumb for thinking this: but wouldn't it make sense to actually try and send this to blizzard as an inspiration of how something like this could be implemented? if it's purpose isn't to cheat anyways what's the harm.
On April 13 2012 21:48 Parnass wrote: so maybe I'm dumb for thinking this: but wouldn't it make sense to actually try and send this to blizzard as an inspiration of how something like this could be implemented? if it's purpose isn't to cheat anyways what's the harm.
I don't think Blizzard needs any inspiration. btw.: this could even be implemented way better by blizzard.
The sheer simplicity of this program is amazing. Remember the GSTL drama? Completely averted with a simple feature like this coded into SC2. Props to the OP for such an amazing post, and for re-igniting the conversation about BattleNet's failings.
On April 13 2012 21:48 Parnass wrote: so maybe I'm dumb for thinking this: but wouldn't it make sense to actually try and send this to blizzard as an inspiration of how something like this could be implemented? if it's purpose isn't to cheat anyways what's the harm.
I don't think Blizzard needs any inspiration. btw.: this could even be implemented way better by blizzard.
Blizz just have their own perverted view of what should or shouldn't be implemented. The games based on dota also have reconnect systems and they work perfectly. Probably wouldn't be too difficult for blizzard unless they've made their system so that they would have to build everything from scratch to implement it. (like the reason why there will never be lan in sc2 by blizz)
I'm not about to touch this myself because I enjoy not being hunted by Warden - but serious respect for not only being able to reverse engineer everything, but also being able to show Blizzard how passionate people in the community are towards making Starcraft II the best it can be. It'd be nice if they would do the same.
I love how every time people start making excuses for blizzard not being able to implement something due to programming difficulty someone instantly proves them wrong. Feels good man. plz valve develop sc2.
You can resume the game as the player playing, but what about your opponent? How to get him into the game? :o I mean both can load up the replay to some point in time.. but they won't be in the same game, will they? :O
On April 13 2012 21:48 Praetorial wrote: Wow. If this works as intended...this is groundbreaking.
This is what I thought! Obviously this doesn't apply to ladder games, but tournaments complaining about LAN now have a ...workaround I guess. It still doesn't fix lag issues, but it's always miserable when a secretly prepared strategy is used in a pro game, 8 mins in it gets scouted and player 1 realizes he's screwed, and then a disconnent. Whelp, that strat will never work again...
On April 13 2012 20:42 Scisyhp wrote: From my understanding of this though, it actually replays the game as it happened according to the replay. So, practicing with it would require sitting through the first however many minutes of the game every single time.
It speeds through it insanely fast. Forget the 8x speed, this is much, much faster. Doesn't take long at all (well, perhaps for a 20+ min game it is still a few real time minutes, I have only tried to get to the 05:00 mark and that is very very fast).
On April 13 2012 22:30 Type|NarutO wrote: You can resume the game as the player playing, but what about your opponent? How to get him into the game? :o I mean both can load up the replay to some point in time.. but they won't be in the same game, will they? :O
I think this is more a demonstration, rather than a solution.
On April 13 2012 22:30 Type|NarutO wrote: You can resume the game as the player playing, but what about your opponent? How to get him into the game? :o I mean both can load up the replay to some point in time.. but they won't be in the same game, will they? :O
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).
So, yes. But..
On April 13 2012 17:23 DeltruS wrote: I tested it out with another player named SilentCF. We both had the "Resume Game" button pressed and we both had the same replay selected and same start time. SilentCF's computer wasn't as good as mine or something because he lagged like crazy while the replay ran at 40x speed.
End result: We loaded 15 mins into a 20 min ZvZ on daybreak. It took around 10s after 15 mins for the lag to clear down, but after that everything ran fine and we could have continued the match.
There were no hotkeys and all the previous move commands were still active so units were running everywhere.
We tried doing a game on Shakuras but the rep broke. It might have been because we started at different start positions compared to the replay.
On April 13 2012 22:30 Type|NarutO wrote: You can resume the game as the player playing, but what about your opponent? How to get him into the game? :o I mean both can load up the replay to some point in time.. but they won't be in the same game, will they? :O
Yes, in the example given a couple pages in the program uses the replay info to replicate all the actions of both players in one custom game. It then drops you both off at whatever time you specified and no longer carrying out the replay actions.
No doubt Blizzard could implement this. They probably don't care enough to justify the time investment. GSTL finals should have been a serious cue though.
On April 13 2012 20:24 aRRoSC2 wrote: ARE YOU ******* SERIOUS
practicing certain things just literally got 10000% easier. I'm sitting with this expression :o in real life while typing this :D Practicing army engagements and such will be sooooooooooooooo much easier, I've wanted this FOREVER. If this is actually for real... You are my GOD.
search for SALT you will find something interesting.
This actually returns the game state exactly as it was. SALT attempts to approximate it through triggers, which has a few flaws.
this is the best thing ever made for sc2! every professional player that takes improvement seriously needs to use this to play scenarios with a practise partner problem with the deathball? load your last tournament game where you lost against it and practise the hell out of it it reduces repetitive parts of play and accelerates practise by manyfold!!! ive suggested such a program since ever but the guy who does sc2 gears said the replay files arent understood so you cant parse them, dunno how op did it =D if it works its a revolution for practise, implications for disconnecting etc not even considered
It's absolutely pathetic that Blizzard is slacking so hard with Bnet2.0 We should stop acting like they are working hard or something, cause they simply aren't. Adding this function and many many other things Bnet2.0 needs should take a few weeks at most for a company like Blizzard. But 2 years with Bnet2.0 and still nothing, pretty fkin retarded if u ask me.
I had thought of this a long time ago, I'm really happy someone made it, it sucks that it's illegal?
While Its improbable Blizzard will use this, I can see them doing something similiar it - it's an easy fix to sate the need for LAN which they obviously don't really want to give into, and like others have said the GSTL finals was a pretty good eye opener.
It really is amazing how Blizzard is trying to make SC2 an esport game, sending Rob Simpson all over the world, Mike Morhaine and Dustin Browder personally at IPL4, yet they do not offer a platform that actually supports it as an esport. The whole pirating thing is getting really old and just a poor excuse for lazyness/cheapness.
Good job, hope this in the least will be a bit of a wake up call for Blizzard(though I doubt it, they seem quite content with bnet 0.2).
On April 13 2012 23:29 Jakkerr wrote: It's absolutely pathetic that Blizzard is slacking so hard with Bnet2.0 We should stop acting like they are working hard or something, cause they simply aren't. Adding this function and many many other things Bnet2.0 needs should take a few weeks at most for a company like Blizzard. But 2 years with Bnet2.0 and still nothing, pretty fkin retarded if u ask me.
Cause you, I or anybody here knows exactly how much effort it takes to implement a stable and online version of this into Bnet2.0? Yeah, right...
One of the big reasons as to why BW became so popular was all the "hacks" that made external ladders like iCCup possible.
I am a big endorser of stuff like this. It is apparent that Blizzard don't have the same goals with SC2 as the community in general. And when a huge mass of people wants something, they usually get it. In this case, without the help from Blizzard.
GSL, for example , found that the sucky sucky ladder maps were not good enough for GSL-level play and created their own.
I would like to see the community be even more progressive and go further with mods/hacks.
For example, I have suggested that big tournaments should revert the ghost snipe nerf made in 1.4.3, or implement QXC's idea, by creating custom versions of their maps. The reason is that Blizzard's intentions was not to change the role of the ghost in the TvZ matchup. This apparently failed since we haven't seen a single snipe in a high level TvZ game in weeks. Blizzard should have reverted the patch but did not. The result is a lot of time wasted by terran progamers in pursuing the ghost route in TvZ.
If the community stayed on top of things like this we would have a better balanced game, and the quality of the highest level games would be better since time spent perfecting ghost micro would actually not be a waste of time.
edit: And to clarify something that has been mentioned multiple times in this thread: Implementing functionality would be really easy for Blizzard to do. The argument that it might be hard to do so is taken out of nowhere by people who do not have enough knowledge about programming.
It definitely injects into SC2 runtime, use at your own risk for sure. The OP even said that.
However that being said, this code is really easy, nothing too special. I believe the OP was trying to prove the concept, and show that Blizzard are a bunch of lazy assholes.
That's really great. The only problem is, as already stated before, if you play on a map with more than two starting positions you both have to get the same positions as in the replay, otherwise everything will be broken. =/
I find there is not enough thanks to the author so.. TheSuperCow, thank you so much for taking the time to code this and show how easy it would be for Blizzard to implement.
I have so many flashback of some game-disconnect in tournaments. This could have solve a lot of issues. Blizzard need to hire a guy with a brain and quick ! This program shouldn't be illegal, it's just plain non-sense
On April 13 2012 14:34 Gorkon wrote: Using an unauthorized program would probably incur a Bnet ban, so I'll just wait until Blizzard creates their own similar feature. Good idea, though. Sins of a Solar Empire has a feature that lets you resume multi-player games, and it works quite well. I'm sure Blizzard is working on it.
Even Age of Empires had a save function for multiplayer games.. It's nothing new really.
Thats some futuristic stuff your talking about, technology isnt there yet ! they said so
1997 is clearly the future! Actually, to blizzard it may well be, considering how backwards thinking they can be from time to time.
On April 14 2012 00:19 NeWeNiyaLord wrote: Any tips on how to use this? Do you need 2 players? do you need to have saved the replay yourself? Can you do it vs ai? Having trouble atm
It's in the OP.....
What a great tool, tested the Resume Replay function, and it works almost prefectly. Hotkeys are wiped though.
Great program, kudos to that. But there is one potential problem besides the starting positions. SC2 doesnt work excactly determinstic (2 Marines fighting each other) so if even if you recreate all your actions it may well be that the gamestate is another, or am I mistaken?
By implementing this function Blizzard would actually admit there is some disconnect problem and it is their fault. It is easier to say "sorry, you have bad internet connection" or "sorry, you are holding it wrong"
On April 14 2012 00:24 Knalldi wrote: Great program, kudos to that. But there is one potential problem besides the starting positions. SC2 doesnt work excactly determinstic (2 Marines fighting each other) so if even if you recreate all your actions it may well be that the gamestate is another, or am I mistaken?
But then you would not be able to have replays at all if you couldn't replay everything that happened..
On April 13 2012 14:10 VashTS wrote: I find this very interesting, but I'm not risking neither my game nor my computer on something somebody with 1 post says.
On April 13 2012 23:52 Zarahtra wrote: It really is amazing how Blizzard is trying to make SC2 an esport game, sending Rob Simpson all over the world, Mike Morhaine and Dustin Browder personally at IPL4, yet they do not offer a platform that actually supports it as an esport. The whole pirating thing is getting really old and just a poor excuse for lazyness/cheapness.
Good job, hope this in the least will be a bit of a wake up call for Blizzard(though I doubt it, they seem quite content with bnet 0.2).
I think it's more likely that Blizz has their hands tied on the battle.net issues. It just doesn't make sense that they would invest so much time and money into making these public appearances/tournaments and not fix some basic issues with battle.net.
I remember reading a while ago that Activision has most of the control when it comes to the online/b.net infrastructure? If that's the case, it would explain why Blizz has yet to implement LAN or a more intuitive b.net even though they are adapting to consumer demand for everything else (maps, tournaments, balance, etc.)
On April 14 2012 00:24 Knalldi wrote: Great program, kudos to that. But there is one potential problem besides the starting positions. SC2 doesnt work excactly determinstic (2 Marines fighting each other) so if even if you recreate all your actions it may well be that the gamestate is another, or am I mistaken?
But then you would not be able to have replays at all if you couldn't replay everything that happened..
Dunno, maybe they save the random seed in their replays, so if you put on a new game a new seed is created?
On April 13 2012 23:29 Jakkerr wrote: It's absolutely pathetic that Blizzard is slacking so hard with Bnet2.0 We should stop acting like they are working hard or something, cause they simply aren't. Adding this function and many many other things Bnet2.0 needs should take a few weeks at most for a company like Blizzard. But 2 years with Bnet2.0 and still nothing, pretty fkin retarded if u ask me.
Cause you, I or anybody here knows exactly how much effort it takes to implement a stable and online version of this into Bnet2.0? Yeah, right...
who cares exactly how much effort it takes? All I know is it doesnt take years for a company of Blizzard's size to fix some relatively small issues that the entire community has been asking for for 2 years. They should be ashamed.
On April 14 2012 00:24 Knalldi wrote: Great program, kudos to that. But there is one potential problem besides the starting positions. SC2 doesnt work excactly determinstic (2 Marines fighting each other) so if even if you recreate all your actions it may well be that the gamestate is another, or am I mistaken?
But then you would not be able to have replays at all if you couldn't replay everything that happened..
Dunno, maybe they save the random seed in their replays, so if you put on a new game a new seed is created?
Yeah, it was mentioned somewhere in this thread that the seed is replaced in memory.
Replays are simulated, which is why you have to run them before you can start skipping forwards/backwards through them. Without that they would be save states of each frame of the game (and thus bigger). For them to be able to be simulated, they need to be deterministic.
Is this the same SuperCow who created the very first replay analyzer/map extractor from BW? If so then I can't say I'm surprised at the degree of contribution.
There's a significant risk of being flagged by Warden for this though, since it involves memory injections. I'm sure Blizzard will look into this one way or the other though. Thanks for the post!
Well I imagine Blizzard has something like that (or hopefully something better because quite frankly, while this is already infinitely much better than having no option at all, it's somewhat uncomfortable) planned or almost ready for implementation too. Though I'd imagine they wanted to announce that as something for HotS.
So now the joke's on them for waiting with that or just generally not having come up with some not great but functional hotfix for tournaments, and quite deserved.
Havent read the whole thread. Probably it has already been said:
The technology isn't there yet guys. No LAN. No game save/resume. No decent chat interface. No clan interface. No tournaments like the ones we had in wc3 bnet's.
This will definitely put pressure on Blizz to come up with the official solution, especially after the GSTL incident. If one guy can do it, why can't the whole Blizz team do it. It's a damn disgrace.
On April 13 2012 18:50 felisconcolori wrote: Interesting tool, but I think Blizzard would not like it for one reason - the injects. Because it's actually not playing a replay, so much as it's playing a custom game at high speed while replicating all of the actions both players took (using the replay as a script) until it hits a certain point, then it stops and you take over.
Not entirely, and I apologise because this misconception might have stemmed from my description of how it works. The program itself does not inject any actions into the game. Instead, the program simply "forces" SC2 to play the replay, even though it's in a custom game. All of the "at this time in the replay player 1 moved this unit, so now i'm going to move this unit" stuff is handled by SC2 itself through the very same functions that are used when you load up a replay. The only difference is that those functions are being activated inside of a playable game, rather than the replay viewer. So instead of all of those unit movements and actions and such affecting a replay state that you cannot affect in any way, only observe, they affect the current playable game state. In a very real sense it is actually playing a replay, just on a different stage than usual.
On April 13 2012 18:50 felisconcolori wrote: Great for what the OP created it for. Seriously, badass. But unintended consequence - you can also use it (with modifications, since the OP gave us the source for it) to create a bot which will play the game. Imagine if you could start a game, then let this take over and have an absolutely perfect starting build order/opener. This is the part where blizzard gets unhappy - it's using essentially bannable botting techniques for good. Which means with a little bit of reprogramming, it can be used for evil. I like what it offers, and think it's a great proof of concept - Blizzard has really no excuse for not being able to offer this kind of functionality from within the client over bnet in an approved and secure way. But I think Blizzard will be very skeptical of it, and probably treat it exactly the same as a maphack/bothack because it is using the same techniques.
In an attempt to see if this were possible, I altered the program to move through the replay at normal speed instead of super speed. I then ran it only on one of my clients while both started a custom game. Immediately upon the game loading, both clients hit a Desync window and had to exit. So I'm not sure if it is possible to use this technique to automate one client without the other's permission.
edit: this might have something to do with the program changing the RNG seed. Perhaps if you didn't change it there might not be a desync, but then the automation may not work properly due to variance.
Ahh. Makes more sense now - thanks much. Possibly it's the RNG seed causing problems - wouldn't both clients have the same seed for syncronization, or if the seed is part of the server-side security protocols?
I think Blizz implementing this will be contingent on implementing shared replay watching, seems aspects of the code would be shared if they implemented it intelligently.
Heh, it would be pretty fun to resume games played by pros with my friends.
If Blizzard wants to keep it the way it is they should just make some sort of encrypted SC2 with LAN or something of the sort that maybe expires after the tournament or that only has the certain maps in that map pool or something that will limit use for a single tournament.
I am not a rocket scientist don't make fun of me for my lack of information on software/security.
So is a player less likely to get flagged by Warden if he uses a hack like this outside of a ladder game? Or is Warden's coverage much more widespread, even covering custom games?
On April 14 2012 01:25 eviltomahawk wrote: Question about Warden:
So is a player less likely to get flagged by Warden if he uses a hack like this outside of a ladder game? Or is Warden's coverage much more widespread, even covering custom games?
It's sweeping, as far as I'm aware. In any event, can't be too careful. Blizzard has been notified about this tool but it's still good to be cautious.
Blizzard's past philosophy has been "all third party programs put you at risk" and while they are capable of detecting these programs, they chose only to take action against malevolent programs. For example, things like PenguinPlug which fell 100% under the "third party program" umbrella were known to Blizzard, but because they caused no ill effects, Blizzard did not ban PenguinPlug users. There is no telling if this is still their policy, though.
On April 14 2012 00:16 dudel wrote: That's really great. The only problem is, as already stated before, if you play on a map with more than two starting positions you both have to get the same positions as in the replay, otherwise everything will be broken. =/
But as a proof of concept it's really great!
So keep reloading the map until you are at the same two starting positions. No problem. Obviously if the players are gonna go to a replay resume instead of a regame, the game has progressed long enough for both players to know their opponent's starting location anyways.
What if both players disconnect at the same time? Can you still save a replay? Also how are games recorded to bnet if they're resumed and after that finished?
On April 14 2012 01:56 superbarnie wrote: Wouldn't altering the sc2 memory trigger a de-sync?
Haven't looked much into this, but de-syncs are triggered by assets for both players not being equal, I can't imagine this changing any of them. Or if it does, it seems to do it for both of the players equally, so they'll still be in sync with each other. It could cause issues for other people watching the final replay, though. That's just my experienced guess from messing around with in-game assets, so don't quote me on it.
Probably blizzard has worried about the implications of allowing other players replay someone else's game, especially when e-sports is getting big. They don't want builds going obsolete or being figured out so quickly from being able to replay specific game moments. Can't think of any other reason they have not already done this.
That being said I still want clan support and being able to watch replays together with friends along the multitude of things battle.net 2.0 is and has been missing for the past 1.5 years.
On April 13 2012 14:31 jeeneeus wrote: Well hasn't SALT been out for a while? Blizzard hasn't done anything regarding using this function.
Blizz has been too busy making money. Their time is so valuable.....
Yeah they should totally just run at a loss. I mean SC2 is the last Blizz game we ever need right?
Are you saying if blizzard had developed something like this it would have bankrupted the entire company and sc2 would be their last game ever? That seems rather unlikely to me what makes you think that would happen?
No one has to worry about being banned, since it'll most likely be used in large number, and Blizzard has been alerted to it. Don't ever expect tournaments to use this though, as it's 3rd party, and the last thing tournaments want is to get on Blizzard's bad side.
On April 13 2012 14:31 jeeneeus wrote: Well hasn't SALT been out for a while? Blizzard hasn't done anything regarding using this function.
Blizz has been too busy making money. Their time is so valuable.....
Yeah they should totally just run at a loss. I mean SC2 is the last Blizz game we ever need right?
Are you saying if blizzard had developed something like this it would have bankrupted the entire company and sc2 would be their last game ever? That seems rather unlikely to me what makes you think that would happen?
no, he's pointing out that complaining about blizzard's desire to make money is absurd.
They don't want builds going obsolete or being figured out so quickly from being able to replay specific game moments. Can't think of any other reason they have not already done this.
I would bet you everything i own that this has not even entered their minds for a second yet
On April 14 2012 02:15 Xyik wrote: Probably blizzard has worried about the implications of allowing other players replay someone else's game, especially when e-sports is getting big. They don't want builds going obsolete or being figured out so quickly from being able to replay specific game moments. Can't think of any other reason they have not already done this.
That is a total non-issue. You can already do what you are describing with the map editor, it's possible to setup games from any given point or set of circumstances without even programming anything.
On April 14 2012 00:38 Gowerly wrote: Replays are simulated, which is why you have to run them before you can start skipping forwards/backwards through them. Without that they would be save states of each frame of the game (and thus bigger). For them to be able to be simulated, they need to be deterministic.
Yep. Replays are -- beside text like names, chat, whispers -- simply a list of consecutive commands (build unit X, move unit X to x,y, make unit X use ability Y, ...) given by player 1, player 2, etc. and will be rendered the same given the same client. Obviously, the render engine of the SC2 client is the same for playing actual games as it is for watching replays (which is just an automated game basically).
What the author of this proof of concept achieved is figuring out how to instruct the SC2 client in memory to go to certain subroutines (i.e. execute commands from a replay upon entering a custom game) and how to keep the clients sync'd.
Blizzard could easily have an option for custom games to load a replay to advance to a certain point in this way. Improvements would include forcing the same starting positions, lock mouse and keyboard interaction for the duration of fast forward (40x speed), and have one of the players (or obs, refs who were present) issue a pause command when the desired time in the replay is reached.
On April 14 2012 00:16 dudel wrote: That's really great. The only problem is, as already stated before, if you play on a map with more than two starting positions you both have to get the same positions as in the replay, otherwise everything will be broken. =/
But as a proof of concept it's really great!
So keep reloading the map until you are at the same two starting positions. No problem. Obviously if the players are gonna go to a replay resume instead of a regame, the game has progressed long enough for both players to know their opponent's starting location anyways.
Yeah, but on a 4 player map the chance of you hitting the right position is 1/4 and then your opponent hitting his position is 1/3, so with roughly 8% chance of hitting the right positions it could take a while =). Although, custom maps that let you chose your starting positions could be helpful.
This is an embarrassment for Blizzard. If this guy made this feature in very little time, it's inexcusable that the whole Blizzard development team couldn't get this done in 2 years. More if you count the development time before release. Evidently, it's not cause it was hard to make, it's because Blizzard is busy doing other things, like HotS, which will make them money, rather than this or improving the UI, which won't, but will make us happy.
While Blizzard's priorities are... understandable, and surely successful in the short term, let's see how well it works for them in the future.
One thing to think of is the fact that the people that are complaining about these issues, have allready bought the game. Why should they spare us a thought
pretty happy this has been proved so easy, hopefully blizzard will be forced into action, but probably not. without it being official its just a really neat piece of coding, but useless for tournaments, who probably wont use it for fear of having their licenses revoked etc
Obvious, Blizzard don't want tournaments to use it. So the question is, which tournament have the balls to say: I don't care what you want Blizzard ! I for sure don't care and will use it.
I'm wondering how does this work in SC2 Starter Edition? Can started edition players play with any race by using this trick? I mean they are allowed to only play Human race but with this trick can they play zerg or protoss by swithcing race with the opponent?
On April 14 2012 03:15 skeldark wrote: Obvious, Blizzard don't want tournaments to use it. So the question is, which tournament have the balls to say: I don't care what you want Blizzard ! I for sure don't care and will use it.
Then Blizzard wouldn't give the tournament a license? No tournament. That's fine for Blizzard
On April 14 2012 03:15 skeldark wrote: Obvious, Blizzard don't want tournaments to use it. So the question is, which tournament have the balls to say: I don't care what you want Blizzard ! I for sure don't care and will use it.
Then Blizzard wouldn't give the tournament a license? No tournament. That's fine for Blizzard
And? For what reason i need a license from them. Its not like they can shut down my tournament by law. People ask for license to dont start a fight. Perhaps they would win a law case in korea but for sure not in germany and most other country. And if it comes hard... Russia the new location of all tournaments ^^.
On April 14 2012 03:15 skeldark wrote: Obvious, Blizzard don't want tournaments to use it. So the question is, which tournament have the balls to say: I don't care what you want Blizzard ! I for sure don't care and will use it.
Then Blizzard wouldn't give the tournament a license? No tournament. That's fine for Blizzard
And? For what reason i need a license from them. Its not like they can shut down my tournament by law. People ask for license to dont start a fight. No way they would win a law case, in germany and i think in most other country too.
Actually they can. They can sue your pants off, because you agreed to the license that said you need a tournament license when you installed the game.
On April 14 2012 03:00 Integra wrote: Read the source code, no malware or virus, compiled it and tested it and it worked. It's legit, and why the hell hasn't Blizzard done this themselves?
too busy counting their money from wow and thinking of ways to make more money, will this feature make them money? not really. then blizzard doesn't really care.
just the way the company has become now days.. i really can't stand it. they make great games but they could be so much better if they tried to make the game better instead of selling more copies.
and no, selling more copies doesn't= a better game.
On April 14 2012 03:15 skeldark wrote: Obvious, Blizzard don't want tournaments to use it. So the question is, which tournament have the balls to say: I don't care what you want Blizzard ! I for sure don't care and will use it.
Then Blizzard wouldn't give the tournament a license? No tournament. That's fine for Blizzard
And? For what reason i need a license from them. Its not like they can shut down my tournament by law. People ask for license to dont start a fight. No way they would win a law case, in germany and i think in most other country too.
Actually they can. They can sue your pants off, because you agreed to the license that said you need a tournament license when you installed the game.
So many people don't understand, that only because there is something in the text when you install the game, do not mean that this is law. The law is the law. Not a text they show when you install the game. When the text is against the law, i can sign it all day long without any need to accept it.
PS: -An agreement that was made after buying the game is worthless anyways. If i had to sign it before i send the money to amazon its still 50/50 if this kind of userlicense is legal. But show me a text after the deal: Is like change the contract after its sign. In most states: Pay and deliver : the contract is done.
-Also i never did any kind of contract with Blizzard. I did a contract with Amazon.
On April 14 2012 03:15 skeldark wrote: Obvious, Blizzard don't want tournaments to use it. So the question is, which tournament have the balls to say: I don't care what you want Blizzard ! I for sure don't care and will use it.
Then Blizzard wouldn't give the tournament a license? No tournament. That's fine for Blizzard
And? For what reason i need a license from them. Its not like they can shut down my tournament by law. People ask for license to dont start a fight. No way they would win a law case, in germany and i think in most other country too.
Actually they can. They can sue your pants off, because you agreed to the license that said you need a tournament license when you installed the game.
You know very little abotu law (me too) dont you? Because I'm almost positive EULA's are not the most binding of contracts. And many have been fought and won.
On April 14 2012 03:15 skeldark wrote: Obvious, Blizzard don't want tournaments to use it. So the question is, which tournament have the balls to say: I don't care what you want Blizzard ! I for sure don't care and will use it.
Then Blizzard wouldn't give the tournament a license? No tournament. That's fine for Blizzard
And? For what reason i need a license from them. Its not like they can shut down my tournament by law. People ask for license to dont start a fight. Perhaps they would win a law case in korea but for sure not in germany and most other country. And if it comes hard... Russia the new location of all tournaments ^^.
they will just ban your ip from battlenet. this is the whole reason for 100% internet connection required, so blizzard has complete control. stop trying to be a cool kid who thinks he can outsmart everyone else.
On April 14 2012 03:15 skeldark wrote: Obvious, Blizzard don't want tournaments to use it. So the question is, which tournament have the balls to say: I don't care what you want Blizzard ! I for sure don't care and will use it.
Then Blizzard wouldn't give the tournament a license? No tournament. That's fine for Blizzard
And? For what reason i need a license from them. Its not like they can shut down my tournament by law. People ask for license to dont start a fight. Perhaps they would win a law case in korea but for sure not in germany and most other country. And if it comes hard... Russia the new location of all tournaments ^^.
they will just ban your ip from battlenet. this is the whole reason for 100% internet connection required, so blizzard has complete control. stop trying to be a cool kid who thinks he can outsmart everyone else.
And how exactly do they get my ip? All i have to do is not show the username in the stream. Also blizzard know everything i said. They just hope that most people out there obey to everything they write. Thats the main reason why company show this "license" before you install the game. They know most users are idiots.
On April 14 2012 03:15 skeldark wrote: Obvious, Blizzard don't want tournaments to use it. So the question is, which tournament have the balls to say: I don't care what you want Blizzard ! I for sure don't care and will use it.
Then Blizzard wouldn't give the tournament a license? No tournament. That's fine for Blizzard
And? For what reason i need a license from them. Its not like they can shut down my tournament by law. People ask for license to dont start a fight. Perhaps they would win a law case in korea but for sure not in germany and most other country. And if it comes hard... Russia the new location of all tournaments ^^.
they will just ban your ip from battlenet. this is the whole reason for 100% internet connection required, so blizzard has complete control. stop trying to be a cool kid who thinks he can outsmart everyone else.
My god, this could be pretty revolutionary. Imagine for a moment that you had the perfect opening, then a bunker rush comes, you lose, yet you know it was in your power to pull off the win in that scenario, so you play it out again till you get it. Or lets say you have a problem with macro at around the 15 minute mark, you start jumping up to over one k, all because you have difficulty adapting from two base economy to three or four.
Also because this hack essentially works for any replay, we can step into a famous game with our friends at any point, perhaps a spectacular come back by mma, players could make a fun little challenge out of seeing if they could pull off the seemingly impossible victory with their friends just like our favourite programers. Also instructional casters can step into a replay and show a player how their supposed to execute something, or where they went wrong.
This does so much more than just cut potential fat from the game, it represents a significant potential change to the way we learn how to play Starcraft, (and it makes sense doesn't it? I mean someone practicing a song on piano shouldn't have to restart the whole piece because they want to practice one part). It all begins right here, just because a coder with some free time on his hands really hated battle net and probably cared a bit about tl ( :
A big problem with abolishing LAN and using purely internet for tournaments is the disconnects. Don't understand why Blizzard has never written a program or something to fix that, it can be done. But anyway's great that someone is doing it, hopefully this will bring us a step forward to problem-free LANs.
On April 14 2012 03:15 skeldark wrote: Obvious, Blizzard don't want tournaments to use it. So the question is, which tournament have the balls to say: I don't care what you want Blizzard ! I for sure don't care and will use it.
Then Blizzard wouldn't give the tournament a license? No tournament. That's fine for Blizzard
And? For what reason i need a license from them. Its not like they can shut down my tournament by law. People ask for license to dont start a fight. Perhaps they would win a law case in korea but for sure not in germany and most other country. And if it comes hard... Russia the new location of all tournaments ^^.
they will just ban your ip from battlenet. this is the whole reason for 100% internet connection required, so blizzard has complete control. stop trying to be a cool kid who thinks he can outsmart everyone else.
And how exactly do they get my ip? All i have to do is not show the username in the stream. Also blizzard know everything i said. They just hope that most people out there dont understand law like you and will obey to everything they write. Thats the main reason why companys show this "license" before you install the game. They know most users are idiots.
Lol u are so smart kid.But what about blizzard banning your acc?
Interesting, very interesting. I'm excited to see some response from Blizz, though I doubt there will be. It is good that we, as a community, can make these steps forward with or without Blizzard and it seems to me that this huge group of people working towards improving the game for free is a resource Blizz should utilize.
This is an amazing proof of concept. Awesome for disconnects and for fun!
Load up famous matches and play out decisive battles for fun, or to see what could have been? Don't mind if I do...
This + shared replays is the holy grail. We know it's not a technical limitation -- Blizzard just needs to assign engineers to do it with a priority. It's a business decision, just like LAN.
On April 14 2012 03:15 skeldark wrote: Obvious, Blizzard don't want tournaments to use it. So the question is, which tournament have the balls to say: I don't care what you want Blizzard ! I for sure don't care and will use it.
Then Blizzard wouldn't give the tournament a license? No tournament. That's fine for Blizzard
And? For what reason i need a license from them. Its not like they can shut down my tournament by law. People ask for license to dont start a fight. Perhaps they would win a law case in korea but for sure not in germany and most other country. And if it comes hard... Russia the new location of all tournaments ^^.
they will just ban your ip from battlenet. this is the whole reason for 100% internet connection required, so blizzard has complete control. stop trying to be a cool kid who thinks he can outsmart everyone else.
And how exactly do they get my ip? All i have to do is not show the username in the stream. Also blizzard know everything i said. They just hope that most people out there dont understand law like you and will obey to everything they write. Thats the main reason why companys show this "license" before you install the game. They know most users are idiots.
Lol u are so smart kid.But what about blizzard banning your acc?
And how do they know my account name? Whats the difference between account name and ip? If we play on battlenet they see in their logfiles: ip for name and name for ip....
Its easy to look smart if you are surrounded by guys like you...
On April 14 2012 03:15 skeldark wrote: Obvious, Blizzard don't want tournaments to use it. So the question is, which tournament have the balls to say: I don't care what you want Blizzard ! I for sure don't care and will use it.
Then Blizzard wouldn't give the tournament a license? No tournament. That's fine for Blizzard
And? For what reason i need a license from them. Its not like they can shut down my tournament by law. People ask for license to dont start a fight. Perhaps they would win a law case in korea but for sure not in germany and most other country. And if it comes hard... Russia the new location of all tournaments ^^.
they will just ban your ip from battlenet. this is the whole reason for 100% internet connection required, so blizzard has complete control. stop trying to be a cool kid who thinks he can outsmart everyone else.
And how exactly do they get my ip? All i have to do is not show the username in the stream. Also blizzard know everything i said. They just hope that most people out there dont understand law like you and will obey to everything they write. Thats the main reason why companys show this "license" before you install the game. They know most users are idiots.
Lol u are so smart kid.But what about blizzard banning your acc?
And how do they know my account name? Whats the difference between account name and ip? If we play on battlenet they see in their logfiles: ip for name and name for ip....
Its easy to look smart if you are surrounded by guys like you...
On April 14 2012 03:38 gumshoe wrote: My god, this could be pretty revolutionary. Imagine for a moment that you had the perfect opening, then a bunker rush comes, you lose, yet you know it was in your power to pull off the win in that scenario, so you play it out again till you get it. Or lets say you have a problem with macro at around the 15 minute mark, you start jumping up to over one k, all because you have difficulty adapting from two base economy to three or four.
Also because this hack essentially works for any replay, we can step into a famous game with our friends at any point, perhaps a spectacular come back by mma, players could make a fun little challenge out of seeing if they could pull off the seemingly impossible victory with their friends just like our favourite programers. Also instructional casters can step into a replay and show a player how their supposed to execute something, or where they went wrong.
This does so much more than just cut potential fat from the game, it represents a significant potential change to the way we learn how to play Starcraft, (and it makes sense doesn't it? I mean someone practicing a song on piano shouldn't have to restart the whole piece because they want to practice one part). It all begins right here, just because a coder with some free time on his hands really hated battle net and probably cared a bit about tl ( :
Yup. Tons of potential in every aspect: tournaments, practice, fun, socializing, pro players, casual players. It's the single feature (along with shared replays, which this kinda IS in a way...) that I've been harping on for so long because it has such a broad impact.
On April 14 2012 03:15 skeldark wrote: Obvious, Blizzard don't want tournaments to use it. So the question is, which tournament have the balls to say: I don't care what you want Blizzard ! I for sure don't care and will use it.
Then Blizzard wouldn't give the tournament a license? No tournament. That's fine for Blizzard
And? For what reason i need a license from them. Its not like they can shut down my tournament by law. People ask for license to dont start a fight. Perhaps they would win a law case in korea but for sure not in germany and most other country. And if it comes hard... Russia the new location of all tournaments ^^.
they will just ban your ip from battlenet. this is the whole reason for 100% internet connection required, so blizzard has complete control. stop trying to be a cool kid who thinks he can outsmart everyone else.
And how exactly do they get my ip? All i have to do is not show the username in the stream. Also blizzard know everything i said. They just hope that most people out there dont understand law like you and will obey to everything they write. Thats the main reason why companys show this "license" before you install the game. They know most users are idiots.
Lol u are so smart kid.But what about blizzard banning your acc?
And how do they know my account name? Whats the difference between account name and ip? If we play on battlenet they see in their logfiles: ip for name and name for ip....
Its easy to look smart if you are surrounded by guys like you...
There are circumstantial methods, such as what your user path was, and what you did when. Now, stop derailing this thread.
On April 14 2012 03:15 skeldark wrote: Obvious, Blizzard don't want tournaments to use it. So the question is, which tournament have the balls to say: I don't care what you want Blizzard ! I for sure don't care and will use it.
Then Blizzard wouldn't give the tournament a license? No tournament. That's fine for Blizzard
And? For what reason i need a license from them. Its not like they can shut down my tournament by law. People ask for license to dont start a fight. Perhaps they would win a law case in korea but for sure not in germany and most other country. And if it comes hard... Russia the new location of all tournaments ^^.
they will just ban your ip from battlenet. this is the whole reason for 100% internet connection required, so blizzard has complete control. stop trying to be a cool kid who thinks he can outsmart everyone else.
And how exactly do they get my ip? All i have to do is not show the username in the stream. Also blizzard know everything i said. They just hope that most people out there dont understand law like you and will obey to everything they write. Thats the main reason why companys show this "license" before you install the game. They know most users are idiots.
Lol u are so smart kid.But what about blizzard banning your acc?
And how do they know my account name? Whats the difference between account name and ip? If we play on battlenet they see in their logfiles: ip for name and name for ip....
Its easy to look smart if you are surrounded by guys like you...
You are talking about ban me when i use this program? I thought you talk about ban my players in my tournament. (which is not possible because they only see the stream where two guys are playing without any more information)
Oh if they ban the account of the tournament like they do with all the cheaters in bnet that should not be a problem. In 2 and a half year, when they ban i just buy a new account....
On April 14 2012 03:15 skeldark wrote: Obvious, Blizzard don't want tournaments to use it. So the question is, which tournament have the balls to say: I don't care what you want Blizzard ! I for sure don't care and will use it.
Then Blizzard wouldn't give the tournament a license? No tournament. That's fine for Blizzard
And? For what reason i need a license from them. Its not like they can shut down my tournament by law. People ask for license to dont start a fight. Perhaps they would win a law case in korea but for sure not in germany and most other country. And if it comes hard... Russia the new location of all tournaments ^^.
they will just ban your ip from battlenet. this is the whole reason for 100% internet connection required, so blizzard has complete control. stop trying to be a cool kid who thinks he can outsmart everyone else.
And how exactly do they get my ip? All i have to do is not show the username in the stream. Also blizzard know everything i said. They just hope that most people out there dont understand law like you and will obey to everything they write. Thats the main reason why companys show this "license" before you install the game. They know most users are idiots.
Lol u are so smart kid.But what about blizzard banning your acc?
And how do they know my account name? Whats the difference between account name and ip? If we play on battlenet they see in their logfiles: ip for name and name for ip....
Its easy to look smart if you are surrounded by guys like you...
There are circumstantial methods, such as what your user path was, and what you did when. Now, stop derailing this thread.
You mean blizzard could track on the useractions on the stream they are watching the playername? Thats a hell of a work. I dont think they can do it in time and even if so i can delay my stream for 30 min. And the fact, that this function come with a mod and not with sc2 let you think about if THEY are able to do so...
If you see my first post, ist mostly ontopic, the rest is just defending my argument against some "opinions"
On April 14 2012 03:15 skeldark wrote: Obvious, Blizzard don't want tournaments to use it. So the question is, which tournament have the balls to say: I don't care what you want Blizzard ! I for sure don't care and will use it.
Then Blizzard wouldn't give the tournament a license? No tournament. That's fine for Blizzard
Are tournaments for under 5000$ free to use this? They don't need a license at all right?
Might be worth a shot to try it if a disconnect happens in one of those blizzard might not want to anger the community by going after a small tournament that does use it.
On April 14 2012 03:15 skeldark wrote: Obvious, Blizzard don't want tournaments to use it. So the question is, which tournament have the balls to say: I don't care what you want Blizzard ! I for sure don't care and will use it.
Then Blizzard wouldn't give the tournament a license? No tournament. That's fine for Blizzard
And? For what reason i need a license from them. Its not like they can shut down my tournament by law. People ask for license to dont start a fight. Perhaps they would win a law case in korea but for sure not in germany and most other country. And if it comes hard... Russia the new location of all tournaments ^^.
they will just ban your ip from battlenet. this is the whole reason for 100% internet connection required, so blizzard has complete control. stop trying to be a cool kid who thinks he can outsmart everyone else.
And how exactly do they get my ip? All i have to do is not show the username in the stream. Also blizzard know everything i said. They just hope that most people out there dont understand law like you and will obey to everything they write. Thats the main reason why companys show this "license" before you install the game. They know most users are idiots.
Lol u are so smart kid.But what about blizzard banning your acc?
And how do they know my account name? Whats the difference between account name and ip? If we play on battlenet they see in their logfiles: ip for name and name for ip....
Its easy to look smart if you are surrounded by guys like you...
You are talking about ban me when i use this program? I thought you talk about ban my players in my tournament. (which is not possible because they only see the stream where two guys are playing without any more information)
Oh if they ban the account of the tournament like they do with all the cheaters in bnet that should not be a problem. In 2 and a half year, when they ban i just buy a new account....
They neednt ban tournament account, they just dont give them license for next tournament. But they can ban normal people who use this program because it violates terms of usage sc2. get it kid?
On April 14 2012 03:15 skeldark wrote: Obvious, Blizzard don't want tournaments to use it. So the question is, which tournament have the balls to say: I don't care what you want Blizzard ! I for sure don't care and will use it.
Then Blizzard wouldn't give the tournament a license? No tournament. That's fine for Blizzard
And? For what reason i need a license from them. Its not like they can shut down my tournament by law. People ask for license to dont start a fight. Perhaps they would win a law case in korea but for sure not in germany and most other country. And if it comes hard... Russia the new location of all tournaments ^^.
they will just ban your ip from battlenet. this is the whole reason for 100% internet connection required, so blizzard has complete control. stop trying to be a cool kid who thinks he can outsmart everyone else.
And how exactly do they get my ip? All i have to do is not show the username in the stream. Also blizzard know everything i said. They just hope that most people out there dont understand law like you and will obey to everything they write. Thats the main reason why companys show this "license" before you install the game. They know most users are idiots.
Lol u are so smart kid.But what about blizzard banning your acc?
And how do they know my account name? Whats the difference between account name and ip? If we play on battlenet they see in their logfiles: ip for name and name for ip....
Its easy to look smart if you are surrounded by guys like you...
You are talking about ban me when i use this program? I thought you talk about ban my players in my tournament. (which is not possible because they only see the stream where two guys are playing without any more information)
Oh if they ban the account of the tournament like they do with all the cheaters in bnet that should not be a problem. In 2 and a half year, when they ban i just buy a new account....
They neednt ban tournament account, they just dont give them license for next tournament. But they can ban normal people who use this program because it violates terms of usage sc2. get it kid?
Read the posts you quote... You dont even understand what the discussion is about.
Also "kid" : When you grow up you perhaps learn how to argue without getting offensive.
On April 14 2012 03:15 skeldark wrote: Obvious, Blizzard don't want tournaments to use it. So the question is, which tournament have the balls to say: I don't care what you want Blizzard ! I for sure don't care and will use it.
Then Blizzard wouldn't give the tournament a license? No tournament. That's fine for Blizzard
And? For what reason i need a license from them. Its not like they can shut down my tournament by law. People ask for license to dont start a fight. Perhaps they would win a law case in korea but for sure not in germany and most other country. And if it comes hard... Russia the new location of all tournaments ^^.
they will just ban your ip from battlenet. this is the whole reason for 100% internet connection required, so blizzard has complete control. stop trying to be a cool kid who thinks he can outsmart everyone else.
And how exactly do they get my ip? All i have to do is not show the username in the stream. Also blizzard know everything i said. They just hope that most people out there dont understand law like you and will obey to everything they write. Thats the main reason why companys show this "license" before you install the game. They know most users are idiots.
Lol u are so smart kid.But what about blizzard banning your acc?
And how do they know my account name? Whats the difference between account name and ip? If we play on battlenet they see in their logfiles: ip for name and name for ip....
Its easy to look smart if you are surrounded by guys like you...
There are circumstantial methods, such as what your user path was, and what you did when. Now, stop derailing this thread.
I can assure you that the moment this 3rd party tool gets used by the general public, Blizzard/Activision will add a piece of software to their next patch with the goal to shut down your account (or maybe warn you or sth). I think they are extremely quick when it comes to programming something they want to.
BTW a quote from StarCraft II lead producer Chris Sigaty on (maybe at least the technical side of ) what the OP's hack does (from June 2009):
Joining a current game will not be possible at launch, but "we have some long terms plans to do a lot with exactly that," explained Sigaty. "The idea of joining and looking at game types you might be interested in participating in, but want to check out first that's something that's possible.
On April 14 2012 03:15 skeldark wrote: Obvious, Blizzard don't want tournaments to use it. So the question is, which tournament have the balls to say: I don't care what you want Blizzard ! I for sure don't care and will use it.
Then Blizzard wouldn't give the tournament a license? No tournament. That's fine for Blizzard
And? For what reason i need a license from them. Its not like they can shut down my tournament by law. People ask for license to dont start a fight. Perhaps they would win a law case in korea but for sure not in germany and most other country. And if it comes hard... Russia the new location of all tournaments ^^.
they will just ban your ip from battlenet. this is the whole reason for 100% internet connection required, so blizzard has complete control. stop trying to be a cool kid who thinks he can outsmart everyone else.
And how exactly do they get my ip? All i have to do is not show the username in the stream. Also blizzard know everything i said. They just hope that most people out there dont understand law like you and will obey to everything they write. Thats the main reason why companys show this "license" before you install the game. They know most users are idiots.
Lol u are so smart kid.But what about blizzard banning your acc?
And how do they know my account name? Whats the difference between account name and ip? If we play on battlenet they see in their logfiles: ip for name and name for ip....
Its easy to look smart if you are surrounded by guys like you...
There are circumstantial methods, such as what your user path was, and what you did when. Now, stop derailing this thread.
I can assure you that the moment this 3rd party tool gets used by the general public, Blizzard/Activision will add a piece of software to their next patch with the goal to shut down your account (or maybe warn you or sth). I think they are extremely quick when it comes to programming something they want to.
BTW a quote from StarCraft II lead producer Chris Sigaty on (maybe at least the technical side of ) what the OP's hack does (from June 2009):
Joining a current game will not be possible at launch, but "we have some long terms plans to do a lot with exactly that," explained Sigaty. "The idea of joining and looking at game types you might be interested in participating in, but want to check out first that's something that's possible.
So yeah, they CAN do it, they had the IDEA to do it, but they didn't WANT to do it.
I don't really know why they would want to fight the use of those programms. I mean there are already programs that intervene into Starcraft like new backgrounds or this stronger coulor mod. I mean how would the use of this program harm them.
Just a question, if I download a replay from a pro, setup this program with a friend and set the game time to the end of the game, or let's say, right when one will GG, what will happen?
Does it means we get shared replays viewer? (: I mean, without the viewers feature and high speed...
On April 14 2012 03:15 skeldark wrote: Obvious, Blizzard don't want tournaments to use it. So the question is, which tournament have the balls to say: I don't care what you want Blizzard ! I for sure don't care and will use it.
Then Blizzard wouldn't give the tournament a license? No tournament. That's fine for Blizzard
And? For what reason i need a license from them. Its not like they can shut down my tournament by law. People ask for license to dont start a fight. Perhaps they would win a law case in korea but for sure not in germany and most other country. And if it comes hard... Russia the new location of all tournaments ^^.
they will just ban your ip from battlenet. this is the whole reason for 100% internet connection required, so blizzard has complete control. stop trying to be a cool kid who thinks he can outsmart everyone else.
And how exactly do they get my ip? All i have to do is not show the username in the stream. Also blizzard know everything i said. They just hope that most people out there dont understand law like you and will obey to everything they write. Thats the main reason why companys show this "license" before you install the game. They know most users are idiots.
Lol u are so smart kid.But what about blizzard banning your acc?
And how do they know my account name? Whats the difference between account name and ip? If we play on battlenet they see in their logfiles: ip for name and name for ip....
Its easy to look smart if you are surrounded by guys like you...
There are circumstantial methods, such as what your user path was, and what you did when. Now, stop derailing this thread.
I can assure you that the moment this 3rd party tool gets used by the general public, Blizzard/Activision will add a piece of software to their next patch with the goal to shut down your account (or maybe warn you or sth). I think they are extremely quick when it comes to programming something they want to.
BTW a quote from StarCraft II lead producer Chris Sigaty on (maybe at least the technical side of ) what the OP's hack does (from June 2009):
Joining a current game will not be possible at launch, but "we have some long terms plans to do a lot with exactly that," explained Sigaty. "The idea of joining and looking at game types you might be interested in participating in, but want to check out first that's something that's possible.
So yeah, they CAN do it, they had the IDEA to do it, but they didn't WANT to do it.
I don't really know why they would want to fight the use of those programms. I mean there are already programs that intervene into Starcraft like new backgrounds or this stronger coulor mod. I mean how would the use of this program harm them.
Maybe it's just that the program interferes with the "core" of the program, you know, game mechanics etc, not only with graphics/miscellaneous. So once they tolerated this, it could become increasingly problematic to check for other hacks. Maybe it's just "losing control over your product, etc." or simply program stability reasons.
One thing that worries me about this is the black box of code that is in util.lib. This is where the injection portion of the program lies and where male-ware would be if it is in there. Any chance of getting that released or can someone RE it to make sure? Other then that the code looks pretty nice and non-harmful, though there is no protection against warden present in the given code.
On April 14 2012 04:17 Gleen wrote: Just a question, if I download a replay from a pro, setup this program with a friend and set the game time to the end of the game, or let's say, right when one will GG, what will happen?
Does it means we get shared replays viewer? (: I mean, without the viewers feature and high speed...
Well, this program isn't going to be a good shared replays viewer since it goes at super speed, but I think it's very possible now through a third party program like this. Heck, the source code is open and free right in the OP, so perhaps some other ambitious programmer/hacker could tweak it to be the shared replays viewer that everyone wants.
On April 14 2012 04:17 Gleen wrote: Just a question, if I download a replay from a pro, setup this program with a friend and set the game time to the end of the game, or let's say, right when one will GG, what will happen?
Does it means we get shared replays viewer? (: I mean, without the viewers feature and high speed...
Well, this program isn't going to be a good shared replays viewer since it goes at super speed, but I think it's very possible now through a third party program like this. Heck, the source code is open and free right in the OP, so perhaps some other ambitious programmer/hacker could tweak it to be the shared replays viewer that everyone wants.
Should be easy to do now with this code. He said he removed the replay ui actively and run it on max speed. So you dont even have to add code you just have to remove code to do so.
Whats even better: As far as i understand you can "take over" for the pros with your friend at any point.
On April 14 2012 03:20 windzor wrote: [quote] Then Blizzard wouldn't give the tournament a license? No tournament. That's fine for Blizzard
And? For what reason i need a license from them. Its not like they can shut down my tournament by law. People ask for license to dont start a fight. Perhaps they would win a law case in korea but for sure not in germany and most other country. And if it comes hard... Russia the new location of all tournaments ^^.
they will just ban your ip from battlenet. this is the whole reason for 100% internet connection required, so blizzard has complete control. stop trying to be a cool kid who thinks he can outsmart everyone else.
And how exactly do they get my ip? All i have to do is not show the username in the stream. Also blizzard know everything i said. They just hope that most people out there dont understand law like you and will obey to everything they write. Thats the main reason why companys show this "license" before you install the game. They know most users are idiots.
Lol u are so smart kid.But what about blizzard banning your acc?
And how do they know my account name? Whats the difference between account name and ip? If we play on battlenet they see in their logfiles: ip for name and name for ip....
Its easy to look smart if you are surrounded by guys like you...
There are circumstantial methods, such as what your user path was, and what you did when. Now, stop derailing this thread.
I can assure you that the moment this 3rd party tool gets used by the general public, Blizzard/Activision will add a piece of software to their next patch with the goal to shut down your account (or maybe warn you or sth). I think they are extremely quick when it comes to programming something they want to.
BTW a quote from StarCraft II lead producer Chris Sigaty on (maybe at least the technical side of ) what the OP's hack does (from June 2009):
Joining a current game will not be possible at launch, but "we have some long terms plans to do a lot with exactly that," explained Sigaty. "The idea of joining and looking at game types you might be interested in participating in, but want to check out first that's something that's possible.
So yeah, they CAN do it, they had the IDEA to do it, but they didn't WANT to do it.
I don't really know why they would want to fight the use of those programms. I mean there are already programs that intervene into Starcraft like new backgrounds or this stronger coulor mod. I mean how would the use of this program harm them.
Maybe it's just that the program interferes with the "core" of the program, you know, game mechanics etc, not only with graphics/miscellaneous. So once they tolerated this, it could become increasingly problematic to check for other hacks. Maybe it's just "losing control over your product, idk" or security/stability reasons.
Well but we can hope that they see that this would be a improvement for their product even if it is a extern program. Just an example. In LOL there is no official replay system but there is a extern program that does the job of a replay system. Riot has allowed the use of this program because its good for their game. Just like this would be good for sc2.
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?
Exactly this. If it's so simple to implement this feature, why not... implement it. Or even buy this program from the OP and add it to the game itself.
wait wait wait wait....aside from the awesome ability to resume games from replays, this guy just essentially made an online replay viewer?? All that needs to be tweaked is the game replay speed? Wow blizzard, just wow.
On April 14 2012 04:32 jimminy_kriket wrote: wait wait wait wait....aside from the awesome ability to resume games from replays, this guy just essentially made an online replay viewer?? All that needs to be tweaked is the game replay speed? Wow blizzard, just wow.
An replay viewer you can INTERACT with.
Download a pro replay. Go to a spot you think you could do better. Play it out.
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?
Exactly this. If it's so simple to implement this feature, why not... implement it. Or even buy this program from the OP and add it to the game itself.
Blizzard needs to be a lot more cautious than the community does because they represent a central point of contact for the game. Even if they were to use 90% of the exact code provided for implementation (cost analysis aside), there's still QA testing, compatibility testing, localization testing due to feature addition, not just on multiplayer games and replays but on sections of the game that are seemingly unrelated (like the single player campaign). SC2 is a big game with a lot of moving parts, and they really can't be too careful. "Easy to implement" is easy enough for us to say from a community perspective, but in practice it's much more difficult for the actual developing company.
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?
Exactly this. If it's so simple to implement this feature, why not... implement it. Or even buy this program from the OP and add it to the game itself.
Blizzard needs to be a lot more cautious than the community does because they represent a central point of contact for the game. Even if they were to use 90% of the exact code provided for implementation (cost analysis aside), there's still QA testing, compatibility testing, localization testing due to feature addition, not just on multiplayer games and replays but on sections of the game that are seemingly unrelated (like the single player campaign). SC2 is a big game with a lot of moving parts, and they really can't be too careful. "Easy to implement" is easy enough for us to say from a community perspective, but in practice it's much more difficult for the actual developing company.
I agree that there is a big difference between writing a Hotfix hack and real game function. Blizzard can not easy add this code into their product because it could screw up future code. You are not able to make big programs with hotfixes. This program change the memory of sc2. As programmer, having something in my program that just overwrite the memory of other parts, that's the worst nightmare!
BUT: I have the feeling, that blizzard blow everything Excalibur said to much up. I mean they get so big and so structured that they get slow and inflexible over time.
If you have to talk to 8 different departments and write 100 pages of documentation and defend everything on 20 meetings for every line of code you put in, you don't want to change anything.
The good part is: Most programmers are offended in their honor if a 3. party hotfix do something they can not. So perhaps they sit down and write it for HoS now only to defend their honor.
On April 14 2012 04:17 Gleen wrote: Just a question, if I download a replay from a pro, setup this program with a friend and set the game time to the end of the game, or let's say, right when one will GG, what will happen?
Does it means we get shared replays viewer? (: I mean, without the viewers feature and high speed...
Almost...
You can't control things they way you can in a replay. But it's close enough that I wonder if someone could hack that up too.
Maybe you can send this to blizzard and tell them what it is. Since you have already done most of the work for them, they should be happy and implement it fast. Anything that makes the game better gets a thumbs up from me. Good job Sir! ^^
And? For what reason i need a license from them. Its not like they can shut down my tournament by law. People ask for license to dont start a fight. Perhaps they would win a law case in korea but for sure not in germany and most other country. And if it comes hard... Russia the new location of all tournaments ^^.
they will just ban your ip from battlenet. this is the whole reason for 100% internet connection required, so blizzard has complete control. stop trying to be a cool kid who thinks he can outsmart everyone else.
And how exactly do they get my ip? All i have to do is not show the username in the stream. Also blizzard know everything i said. They just hope that most people out there dont understand law like you and will obey to everything they write. Thats the main reason why companys show this "license" before you install the game. They know most users are idiots.
Lol u are so smart kid.But what about blizzard banning your acc?
And how do they know my account name? Whats the difference between account name and ip? If we play on battlenet they see in their logfiles: ip for name and name for ip....
Its easy to look smart if you are surrounded by guys like you...
There are circumstantial methods, such as what your user path was, and what you did when. Now, stop derailing this thread.
I can assure you that the moment this 3rd party tool gets used by the general public, Blizzard/Activision will add a piece of software to their next patch with the goal to shut down your account (or maybe warn you or sth). I think they are extremely quick when it comes to programming something they want to.
BTW a quote from StarCraft II lead producer Chris Sigaty on (maybe at least the technical side of ) what the OP's hack does (from June 2009):
Joining a current game will not be possible at launch, but "we have some long terms plans to do a lot with exactly that," explained Sigaty. "The idea of joining and looking at game types you might be interested in participating in, but want to check out first that's something that's possible.
So yeah, they CAN do it, they had the IDEA to do it, but they didn't WANT to do it.
I don't really know why they would want to fight the use of those programms. I mean there are already programs that intervene into Starcraft like new backgrounds or this stronger coulor mod. I mean how would the use of this program harm them.
Maybe it's just that the program interferes with the "core" of the program, you know, game mechanics etc, not only with graphics/miscellaneous. So once they tolerated this, it could become increasingly problematic to check for other hacks. Maybe it's just "losing control over your product, idk" or security/stability reasons.
Well but we can hope that they see that this would be a improvement for their product even if it is a extern program. Just an example. In LOL there is no official replay system but there is a extern program that does the job of a replay system. Riot has allowed the use of this program because its good for their game. Just like this would be good for sc2.
Agreed 100%. Seems clear for everyone but Blizzard/Activision. But if you think of the whole Apple/iPad/iPhone-thing for comparison, their system is extremely restrictive as well. Once you mess with the source code, you lose warranty etc. Since source code is the only thing you buy in the case of SC2, it may explain their paranoia.
BTW Maybe, since LOL is a kind of a mod itself and charge-free, they don't want to try to sue anybody
- A pair of players who wanted to practise could start a game from a set position that is reasonably common in a match up without having to play openings they both know backwards.
- Or maybe just replaying a specific close engagement over and over to practise micro.
I understand that at this time it's a bit cumbersome with this program as it is but what if it could be refined to work more quickly?
Hit button, play engagement from TvP pro replay 1, repeat 10 times. Hit button, play engagement from TvP pro replay 2, repeat 10 times. Hit button, start game from a 2 base push vs. a quick third TvP pro replay, repeat 3 times. Hit button, start game from 3 base vs. 3 base TvP pro replay, repeat 3 times. Hit button, play a full game from the start, repeat 3 times.
Might this be helpful as part of a practise regimine, or am I mental?
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?
Exactly this. If it's so simple to implement this feature, why not... implement it. Or even buy this program from the OP and add it to the game itself.
Blizzard needs to be a lot more cautious than the community does because they represent a central point of contact for the game. Even if they were to use 90% of the exact code provided for implementation (cost analysis aside), there's still QA testing, compatibility testing, localization testing due to feature addition, not just on multiplayer games and replays but on sections of the game that are seemingly unrelated (like the single player campaign). SC2 is a big game with a lot of moving parts, and they really can't be too careful. "Easy to implement" is easy enough for us to say from a community perspective, but in practice it's much more difficult for the actual developing company.
The thing is, is that this game was made by professionals. Any time they program anything for this game, it is based around the idea of being able to be changed and modified easily, and being able to easily have new code added. The problem isn't that it would be difficult to implement into the current code per se, but to make sure the new code will be flexible for future changes.
On April 14 2012 04:53 Dapper_Cad wrote: I wonder if this would be a good training tool.
If you can resume a game from any point then
- A pair of players who wanted to practise could start a game from a set position that is reasonably common in a match up without having to play openings they both know backwards.
- Or maybe just replaying a specific close engagement over and over to practise micro.
I understand that at this time it's a bit cumbersome with this program as it is but what if it could be refined to work more quickly?
Hit button, play engagement from TvP pro replay 1, repeat 10 times. Hit button, play engagement from TvP pro replay 2, repeat 10 times. Hit button, start game from a 2 base push vs. a quick third TvP pro replay, repeat 3 times. Hit button, start game from 3 base vs. 3 base TvP pro replay, repeat 3 times. Hit button, play a full game from the start, repeat 3 times.
Might this be helpful as part of a practise regimine, or am I mental?
Edit: Oh and thanks to the OP for the great work.
There's a custom map that does this, Search for SALT map ingame.
On April 14 2012 04:32 jimminy_kriket wrote: wait wait wait wait....aside from the awesome ability to resume games from replays, this guy just essentially made an online replay viewer?? All that needs to be tweaked is the game replay speed? Wow blizzard, just wow.
An replay viewer you can INTERACT with.
Download a pro replay. Go to a spot you think you could do better. Play it out.
Yup, my thoughts exactly. Even better then going into pro replays and doing this, imagine what this would do for pros trying to practice. Play a game with a practice partner, then watch the replay together and find where you went wrong, then play from just before then. no more need to go through the motions of early game over and over to practice some specific endgame scenarios over and over.
edit: Dapper Cad beat me to it, and spelled it out better. I'm now really disappointed in blizzard for this, if it can be done by one guy in his spare time they have ZERO excuse to not have it in with their entire Dev team of people available.
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?
Exactly this. If it's so simple to implement this feature, why not... implement it. Or even buy this program from the OP and add it to the game itself.
Blizzard needs to be a lot more cautious than the community does because they represent a central point of contact for the game. Even if they were to use 90% of the exact code provided for implementation (cost analysis aside), there's still QA testing, compatibility testing, localization testing due to feature addition, not just on multiplayer games and replays but on sections of the game that are seemingly unrelated (like the single player campaign). SC2 is a big game with a lot of moving parts, and they really can't be too careful. "Easy to implement" is easy enough for us to say from a community perspective, but in practice it's much more difficult for the actual developing company.
The thing is, is that this game was made by professionals. Any time they program anything for this game, it is based around the idea of being able to be changed and modified easily, and being able to easily have new code added. The problem isn't that it would be difficult to implement into the current code per se, but to make sure the new code will be flexible for future changes.
All of that is true for any feature. You could say the same thing about Facebook integration.
The fact this this works, right now, and is only a handful of lines of actual code written in a matter of hours, proves that there's no fundamental architectural reason why they haven't implemented this. It's simply a matter of priorities. Fun or Not, Diablo 3, or shared-replays-with-resume. They made their choices.
To OP: can you put this on Github? Also can you make it clear if this is BSD/MIT or GPL or some licence and that it's okay for others to improve upon?
On April 14 2012 03:15 skeldark wrote: Obvious, Blizzard don't want tournaments to use it. So the question is, which tournament have the balls to say: I don't care what you want Blizzard ! I for sure don't care and will use it.
Then Blizzard wouldn't give the tournament a license? No tournament. That's fine for Blizzard
And? For what reason i need a license from them. Its not like they can shut down my tournament by law. People ask for license to dont start a fight. Perhaps they would win a law case in korea but for sure not in germany and most other country. And if it comes hard... Russia the new location of all tournaments ^^.
they will just ban your ip from battlenet. this is the whole reason for 100% internet connection required, so blizzard has complete control. stop trying to be a cool kid who thinks he can outsmart everyone else.
And how exactly do they get my ip? All i have to do is not show the username in the stream. Also blizzard know everything i said. They just hope that most people out there obey to everything they write. Thats the main reason why company show this "license" before you install the game. They know most users are idiots.
EULA for software programs has been i courts, even in germany, and the EULA was indeed a legal document and binding. MS isn't too happy because they had to pay for people not wanting their Windows OEM version...
Anyone able to record a video of this in action? I'd rather not use it personally but I'd like to see how it looks if anyone out there is trying it out.
On April 14 2012 03:15 skeldark wrote: Obvious, Blizzard don't want tournaments to use it. So the question is, which tournament have the balls to say: I don't care what you want Blizzard ! I for sure don't care and will use it.
Then Blizzard wouldn't give the tournament a license? No tournament. That's fine for Blizzard
And? For what reason i need a license from them. Its not like they can shut down my tournament by law. People ask for license to dont start a fight. Perhaps they would win a law case in korea but for sure not in germany and most other country. And if it comes hard... Russia the new location of all tournaments ^^.
they will just ban your ip from battlenet. this is the whole reason for 100% internet connection required, so blizzard has complete control. stop trying to be a cool kid who thinks he can outsmart everyone else.
And how exactly do they get my ip? All i have to do is not show the username in the stream. Also blizzard know everything i said. They just hope that most people out there obey to everything they write. Thats the main reason why company show this "license" before you install the game. They know most users are idiots.
EULA for software programs has been i courts, even in germany, and the EULA was indeed a legal document and binding. MS isn't too happy because they had to pay for people not wanting their Windows OEM version...
No EULA dont hold in court in Germany because they change the contract after the contract was made. You had to actually show EULA in the store where you buy the game.
For those talking about the EULA... Who cares??? The intent is not to ruin the game and Blizzard is not Skynet. They can't break into a tourny and kill Parting or something. If it works and is fairly easy to use I think that they should use it until a better feature comes about.
Would be interesting to see a major tournament use this. Tournaments in Norway should be able to use it, and even though Blizzard would stop it, they wouldn't be allowed by the law.
they will just ban your ip from battlenet. this is the whole reason for 100% internet connection required, so blizzard has complete control. stop trying to be a cool kid who thinks he can outsmart everyone else.
And how exactly do they get my ip? All i have to do is not show the username in the stream. Also blizzard know everything i said. They just hope that most people out there dont understand law like you and will obey to everything they write. Thats the main reason why companys show this "license" before you install the game. They know most users are idiots.
Lol u are so smart kid.But what about blizzard banning your acc?
And how do they know my account name? Whats the difference between account name and ip? If we play on battlenet they see in their logfiles: ip for name and name for ip....
Its easy to look smart if you are surrounded by guys like you...
There are circumstantial methods, such as what your user path was, and what you did when. Now, stop derailing this thread.
I can assure you that the moment this 3rd party tool gets used by the general public, Blizzard/Activision will add a piece of software to their next patch with the goal to shut down your account (or maybe warn you or sth). I think they are extremely quick when it comes to programming something they want to.
BTW a quote from StarCraft II lead producer Chris Sigaty on (maybe at least the technical side of ) what the OP's hack does (from June 2009):
Joining a current game will not be possible at launch, but "we have some long terms plans to do a lot with exactly that," explained Sigaty. "The idea of joining and looking at game types you might be interested in participating in, but want to check out first that's something that's possible.
So yeah, they CAN do it, they had the IDEA to do it, but they didn't WANT to do it.
I don't really know why they would want to fight the use of those programms. I mean there are already programs that intervene into Starcraft like new backgrounds or this stronger coulor mod. I mean how would the use of this program harm them.
Maybe it's just that the program interferes with the "core" of the program, you know, game mechanics etc, not only with graphics/miscellaneous. So once they tolerated this, it could become increasingly problematic to check for other hacks. Maybe it's just "losing control over your product, idk" or security/stability reasons.
Well but we can hope that they see that this would be a improvement for their product even if it is a extern program. Just an example. In LOL there is no official replay system but there is a extern program that does the job of a replay system. Riot has allowed the use of this program because its good for their game. Just like this would be good for sc2.
Agreed 100%. Seems clear for everyone but Blizzard/Activision. But if you think of the whole Apple/iPad/iPhone-thing for comparison, their system is extremely restrictive as well. Once you mess with the source code, you lose warranty etc. Since source code is the only thing you buy in the case of SC2, it may explain their paranoia.
BTW Maybe, since LOL is a kind of a mod itself and charge-free, they don't want to try to sue anybody
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe RIOT was the company who made said tool, and was being used, by permission of them, at some early tournaments before it was ever released to the public. I don't think this is a good example at all. I don't think you can sue people for using your own tools with your permission.
Reading memory by itself is a risky territory, since you can find information you shouldn't know about the state of the game, even while laddering. When you actually get into writing memory, it becomes more problematic. While I don't have a problem with this tool specifically, I'm not sure Blizzard would appreciate code injection considering how unpredictable it can make managing everything on their end.
Now as a proof of concept, I approve. It may be a good idea for Blizzard to implement something similar, but to be honest, I imagine they've already thought of this and either haven't had the time to implement (since I suspect 90% of their staff gets forced to work on World of Warcraft instead) or have chosen not to yet for other unknown reasons.
One post, but account is a year old AND its been spotlighted. If anything, greatest. first. post. ever.
I'll give it a go. The only thing I'm worried about is that in BW, the replay would glitch up at higher speeds (2x and up) if there was a lot of stuff happening. It happened quite often in trigger and unit heavy UMS games and it would screw things up super hardcore. I think SC2 is pretty free of those problems though.
On April 14 2012 06:05 Die4Ever wrote: Has someone tried running this inside of a virtual machine to make sure it's not a virus? The source code isn't complete.
Dude if you read a few pages you know many people have tried to use it. It works. And another person mentioned compiling the source code himself (and it worked), so the source code is in fact complete...
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?
What's simple for somebody may not be so simple for others. Maybe Blizz simply never thought of this method.
You assume right now that programmers at Blizzard aren't programmers?
On April 14 2012 06:05 Die4Ever wrote: Has someone tried running this inside of a virtual machine to make sure it's not a virus? The source code isn't complete.
Dude if you read a few pages you know many people have tried to use it. It works. And another person mentioned compiling the source code himself (and it worked), so the source code is in fact complete...
It can be compiled because it has library files, which are compiled code. But it does not have the source code for those libraries, therefore it is difficult to see exactly what this program does.
On April 14 2012 06:05 Die4Ever wrote: Has someone tried running this inside of a virtual machine to make sure it's not a virus? The source code isn't complete.
Dude if you read a few pages you know many people have tried to use it. It works. And another person mentioned compiling the source code himself (and it worked), so the source code is in fact complete...
The source code is complete because the lib is included as a library but not completely opensource. The source for util.lib is not available and there could be potentially malicious stuff in there.
Great job! I'd love to see a video of this in action.
On a side note, if we don't see stuff like this hots, I'm not supporting blizzard anymore. If they can't do stuff that one person can do, thats actually extremely important for tournaments, I see no reason why i should buy any more of their products.
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?
What's simple for somebody may not be so simple for others. Maybe Blizz simply never thought of this method.
You assume right now that programmers at Blizzard aren't programmers?
The worst argument in the world is that blizzard doesn't know how to do this, are you kidding me? you think the programmers at BLIZZARD, blizzard for christ sakes, don't know how to program something this simple? Some people... I can't believe it. of course they know how to, but its not worth their time apparently.
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?
What's simple for somebody may not be so simple for others. Maybe Blizz simply never thought of this method.
You assume right now that programmers at Blizzard aren't programmers?
The worst argument in the world is that blizzard doesn't know how to do this, are you kidding me? you think the programmers at BLIZZARD, blizzard for christ sakes, don't know how to program something this simple? Some people... I can't believe it. of course they know how to, but its not worth their time apparently.
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?
What's simple for somebody may not be so simple for others. Maybe Blizz simply never thought of this method.
You assume right now that programmers at Blizzard aren't programmers?
The worst argument in the world is that blizzard doesn't know how to do this, are you kidding me? you think the programmers at BLIZZARD, blizzard for christ sakes, don't know how to program something this simple? Some people... I can't believe it. of course they know how to, but its not worth their time apparently.
Pretty sure the guy you quoted is saying the exact same thing. Its the guy he quoted you want to be being a dick to.
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?
What's simple for somebody may not be so simple for others. Maybe Blizz simply never thought of this method.
You assume right now that programmers at Blizzard aren't programmers?
The worst argument in the world is that blizzard doesn't know how to do this, are you kidding me? you think the programmers at BLIZZARD, blizzard for christ sakes, don't know how to program something this simple? Some people... I can't believe it. of course they know how to, but its not worth their time apparently.
Yes, I believe so.
Honestly, that's pretty dumb. It's pretty safe to say that the people working on the technical side of SC2 know what they're doing-- someone just hacking up a solution to a problem is entirely different than the process a team of developers would have to go through to implement a similar feature in-game.
Tools like this are awesome and could be the launching point for more similar useful tools, but to say that because someone was able to publish little hack like this before a feature like this was implement in-game the blizzard devs are incompetent doesn't make much sense.
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?
What's simple for somebody may not be so simple for others. Maybe Blizz simply never thought of this method.
You assume right now that programmers at Blizzard aren't programmers?
The worst argument in the world is that blizzard doesn't know how to do this, are you kidding me? you think the programmers at BLIZZARD, blizzard for christ sakes, don't know how to program something this simple? Some people... I can't believe it. of course they know how to, but its not worth their time apparently.
Some of the greatest trojans and viruses of our time fit in under 30 lines of code, a few under 10. If you ask a CS prof about why nobody did it before they say "Well, any programmer could do this, it's not hard and it's nothing special about them at all, just nobody thought about it before". He later said there was a virus that could find your computer on any network it was present on, keylog it, screenshot your screen every second and send it to any ip specified and mail itself to any contacts found on the infected computer while being 8 lines of code, when he saw it he went "Wow, I knew all of this within my first month when i was in school, just never thought about using it like that until I see it now, 20 years later".
True story
All in all, simple doesn't always equal easy. Who knows how Blizz has coded their console platform. Remember there are many layers to consider such as networking, security, validation, extensibility(I almost think this is non-existant in the b.net 2.0 code).
On April 14 2012 04:23 Valeranth wrote: One thing that worries me about this is the black box of code that is in util.lib. This is where the injection portion of the program lies and where male-ware would be if it is in there. Any chance of getting that released or can someone RE it to make sure? Other then that the code looks pretty nice and non-harmful, though there is no protection against warden present in the given code.
The more suspicios behaviour to me is the op not posting anything after the first post. That's usually how troll/advertisers work. Doesn't really matter though, I think we all know blizzard probably could make this feature if they really wanted too, I don't think it has ever been argued it's impossible. We don't need this program to know this.
It might not be 100% the same source used here. But either it's the same author or this util.lib is at least heaviliy based on the work from this repository.
So for all the fellow coders that want to take a look and compare things and check out whether everything is legit have a go. I will probably take another look tomorrow.
To everyone here herp derping, and complaining about Blizzard's lazyness, just fucking stop. Seriously. You have don't have the slightest clue as to what it is you're talking about. There's much more to it than putting a hack together and releasing it to the masses as separate software.
On April 14 2012 07:00 RAW-BERRY wrote: To everyone here herp derping, and complaining about Blizzard's lazyness, just fucking stop. Seriously. You have don't have the slightest clue as to what it is you're talking about. There's much more to it than putting a hack together and releasing it to the masses as separate software.
While I agree with you that it would take much longer to make this a proper and polished feature inside of SC2, I still feel this feature is still a reasonable request from the community.
On April 14 2012 07:00 RAW-BERRY wrote: To everyone here herp derping, and complaining about Blizzard's lazyness, just fucking stop. Seriously. You have don't have the slightest clue as to what it is you're talking about. There's much more to it than putting a hack together and releasing it to the masses as separate software.
How do you know that it's such a difficult feature to implement? I think it would be rather straightforward to implement, and given the high demand for it, Blizzard should absolutely prioritize this.
This type of feature has been implemented before in other games, so there's no reason why Blizzard cannot do it.
From a technical standpoint, resuming a game should be rather similar to running a replay. Maybe there are some issues with synchronizing multiple players, but I can't imagine that being a major roadblock by any means.
On April 14 2012 07:00 RAW-BERRY wrote: To everyone here herp derping, and complaining about Blizzard's lazyness, just fucking stop. Seriously. You have don't have the slightest clue as to what it is you're talking about. There's much more to it than putting a hack together and releasing it to the masses as separate software.
While I agree with you that it would take much longer to make this a proper and polished feature inside of SC2, I still feel this feature is still a reasonable request from the community.
Before it turns into a flame war, I would just like to point out that this and watching shared replays share a bunch of features. I expect the reason we dont have either is not because blizz doesn't want us to have it, but rather because in order to redesign the replay system, they have to re-enter QA, and if they do that, they might as well throw an entire expansion around it
EDIT: furthermore, an alternate feature is for a player to enter into a game that is already running. In general, this is a good idea (for obsing and such).
On April 14 2012 07:00 RAW-BERRY wrote: To everyone here herp derping, and complaining about Blizzard's lazyness, just fucking stop. Seriously. You have don't have the slightest clue as to what it is you're talking about. There's much more to it than putting a hack together and releasing it to the masses as separate software.
While I agree with you that it would take much longer to make this a proper and polished feature inside of SC2, I still feel this feature is still a reasonable request from the community.
Before it turns into a flame war, I would just like to point out that this and watching shared replays share a bunch of features. I expect the reason we dont have either is not because blizz doesn't want us to have it, but rather because in order to redesign the replay system, they have to re-enter QA, and if they do that, they might as well throw an entire expansion around it
Yes, HotS would be a great time to release this feature, hopefully we do get it!
On April 14 2012 07:00 RAW-BERRY wrote: To everyone here herp derping, and complaining about Blizzard's lazyness, just fucking stop. Seriously. You have don't have the slightest clue as to what it is you're talking about. There's much more to it than putting a hack together and releasing it to the masses as separate software.
How do you know that it's such a difficult feature to implement? I think it would be rather straightforward to implement, and given the high demand for it, Blizzard should absolutely prioritize this.
This type of feature has been implemented before in other games, so there's no reason why Blizzard cannot do it.
From a technical standpoint, resuming a game should be rather similar to running a replay. Maybe there are some issues with synchronizing multiple players, but I can't imagine that being a major roadblock by any means.
At microsoft they have 3 testers for every programmer. Writing computer programs is a tricky business when you want the program to be failproof. Just saying that making sure evrything works is the most time consuming part of software development. Add to that the user interface witch has to be designed programmed and tested. Replay resuming isnt such an easy thing to make, it cost time, time that can only be spent on one thing. Maybe the "I feel so alone on Bnet" has a higher priority.
On April 14 2012 07:00 RAW-BERRY wrote: To everyone here herp derping, and complaining about Blizzard's lazyness, just fucking stop. Seriously. You have don't have the slightest clue as to what it is you're talking about. There's much more to it than putting a hack together and releasing it to the masses as separate software.
lol. If it's so complicated, maybe Blizzard should sack up and ask Vavle or S2 for help, because both of those companies managed to implement the feature in their games...
Like seriously, this is Blizzard, they make some of the greatest games of all time but they are far from perfect.
On April 14 2012 07:00 RAW-BERRY wrote: To everyone here herp derping, and complaining about Blizzard's lazyness, just fucking stop. Seriously. You have don't have the slightest clue as to what it is you're talking about. There's much more to it than putting a hack together and releasing it to the masses as separate software.
How do you know that it's such a difficult feature to implement? I think it would be rather straightforward to implement, and given the high demand for it, Blizzard should absolutely prioritize this.
This type of feature has been implemented before in other games, so there's no reason why Blizzard cannot do it.
From a technical standpoint, resuming a game should be rather similar to running a replay. Maybe there are some issues with synchronizing multiple players, but I can't imagine that being a major roadblock by any means.
At microsoft they have 3 testers for every programmer. Writing computer programs is a tricky business when you want the program to be failproof. Just saying that making sure evrything works is the most time consuming part of software development. Add to that the user interface witch has to be designed programmed and tested. Replay resuming isnt such an easy thing to make, it cost time, time that can only be spent on one thing. Maybe the "I feel so alone on Bnet" has a higher priority.
Yes I know there's a long and arduous process for every feature, but I really think this is a low-hanging fruit that they're just failing to capitalize on.
There is very little extra UI work necessary, you just pick a save file instead of a picking a map, and it goes to the lobby and people can join to fill the slots.
I'm not able to check right now, but I assume they already have a save game feature for singleplayer/campaign. If not, then that's a big WTF to me. Assuming that the ability exists for single player, the only complexity now is syncing up multiple players. Maybe this is hard for them because of the way the code is written.
On April 14 2012 07:00 RAW-BERRY wrote: To everyone here herp derping, and complaining about Blizzard's lazyness, just fucking stop. Seriously. You have don't have the slightest clue as to what it is you're talking about. There's much more to it than putting a hack together and releasing it to the masses as separate software.
How do you know that it's such a difficult feature to implement? I think it would be rather straightforward to implement, and given the high demand for it, Blizzard should absolutely prioritize this.
This type of feature has been implemented before in other games, so there's no reason why Blizzard cannot do it.
From a technical standpoint, resuming a game should be rather similar to running a replay. Maybe there are some issues with synchronizing multiple players, but I can't imagine that being a major roadblock by any means.
At microsoft they have 3 testers for every programmer. Writing computer programs is a tricky business when you want the program to be failproof. Just saying that making sure evrything works is the most time consuming part of software development. Add to that the user interface witch has to be designed programmed and tested. Replay resuming isnt such an easy thing to make, it cost time, time that can only be spent on one thing. Maybe the "I feel so alone on Bnet" has a higher priority.
We have closer to 1:1 ratio between testers and programmers
Guys, no one here sees the big picture? Blizzard doesn't want to fix the problem, because they are behind the disconnects. They use the disconnects to influence the outcome of big matches. Blizzard must have had a stake in Prime winning the GSTL.
I just launched up a replay and played as the toss I just beat. I warped in a bunch of units and i got the protoss macro master achievement.... I guess this could be abused by shitloads of people, dunno if it gives you wins as well cause I dont dare trying it out;S
On April 14 2012 07:53 archonOOid wrote: I think that tournaments should use this program. I guess it's a no brainer but nevertheless they should or is it against some Blizzard policy?
iirc it's against both blizzard policy and tournament litigation to use third party software in tournament games. Tournaments couldnt use this for fear of violating the agreement they have with Blizz. Certain mods, such as strong colours, get a bye, but technically they ARE disallowed.
On April 14 2012 07:53 archonOOid wrote: I think that tournaments should use this program. I guess it's a no brainer but nevertheless they should or is it against some Blizzard policy?
iirc it's against both blizzard policy and tournament litigation to use third party software in tournament games. Tournaments couldnt use this for fear of violating the agreement they have with Blizz. Certain mods, such as strong colours, get a bye, but technically they ARE disallowed.
Can't Blizzard and tournaments like IPL negotiate a mutual beneficial deal or is Blizzard´s pride too big? Because Blizzard looks bad, really bad, when disconnects do happen (bad publicity) and tournaments are giving Blizzard sponsorship/hype (good publicity) to SC2.
what we need is someone to interview someone relevant at blizzard about this program and see what their plan will be
they support e-sports, they know disconnects are a problem, they don't want to add lan, but this is the perfect plan that still solves one of the major issues.
On April 14 2012 07:53 archonOOid wrote: I think that tournaments should use this program. I guess it's a no brainer but nevertheless they should or is it against some Blizzard policy?
iirc it's against both blizzard policy and tournament litigation to use third party software in tournament games. Tournaments couldnt use this for fear of violating the agreement they have with Blizz. Certain mods, such as strong colours, get a bye, but technically they ARE disallowed.
You're right, and it's proof that Blizzard is more interested in keeping control and acting like a dictator instead of letting tournaments do what they think is best for their tournament.
Blizzard helping growth of sc2 esports? What a fucking joke of a statement
Does this work with the starter edition? It'd be great to avoid risking your account. I think you can play any replay with the Starter edition, so maybe it works.
On April 14 2012 07:00 RAW-BERRY wrote: To everyone here herp derping, and complaining about Blizzard's lazyness, just fucking stop. Seriously. You have don't have the slightest clue as to what it is you're talking about. There's much more to it than putting a hack together and releasing it to the masses as separate software.
Please tell me TWO examples of "what much more" there is. If it's to resuming a ladder game, then yes, there's tons more.
If it's JUST to get the game to be playable for tournament purposes -- WHAT MORE IS THERE? Please tell me, because right now Blizzard looks like a joke to me.
So, I'll jump into the bandwagon. As someone who knows a bit of coding (well, it's my job in a way after all), and basing myself upon some assumptions that I can consider reasonable : - Of course Blizzard programmers are able to do it. Even more, they've already given in their libraries most of the functions to do it. The source is only 300 lines of code (for the replay part, not the surrounding stuff, i.e GUI, buttons, etc...) because most of it was already here - Still, mad props to incredible OP for reverse engineering - I would say that it is at most a one month patch if there was any will to do it. (Including the very numerous internal playtesters, and a deployment on the PTR)
What to think about it? Well, Blizzard could've implemented it if they wanted to. Pretty quickly too, it wouldn't have strained their resources. I'm not so sure what occupies their day right now. I just hope it's worth it (HotS?)
Edit : Blizzard is probably not lazy. (By the way, I've been at their stand at the GDC '12, I can assure you that even the aspiring programmers were nothing to scoff at, I'd like to see how skilled those who managed to pass the entrance test fare). More likely, they are using their resources in something else than adding minor patches to SC2. Is it a good strategy? I don't know, I code, I don't manage stuff.
It's just priorities. Someone has to allocate an engineer to work on this for a couple weeks. If that guy makes more money for the company by fixing a problem in the WoW server, they have him doing that instead.
That said, enough people bugging Blizzard about this should eventually get them to move this up the list.
On April 14 2012 03:18 mmagic wrote: I'm wondering how does this work in SC2 Starter Edition? Can started edition players play with any race by using this trick? I mean they are allowed to only play Human race but with this trick can they play zerg or protoss by swithcing race with the opponent?
No, you have to to recreate the game settings exactly. So if you don't have the correct map or player races it will just bug out and presumably try to tell the Command Center to build Drones.
On April 14 2012 04:17 Gleen wrote: Just a question, if I download a replay from a pro, setup this program with a friend and set the game time to the end of the game, or let's say, right when one will GG, what will happen?
Does it means we get shared replays viewer? (: I mean, without the viewers feature and high speed...
This program does not ensure that the two clients stay in sync as they are progressing through the replay (only once one of them reaches the resume point), so I believe it wouldn't be any different to just opening up the replay on two separate computers like everyone already does. Plus it does not co-ordinate replay speed changes between the two clients. I think a hypothetical related tool might be able to do these, though.
On April 14 2012 05:45 qwertyindeed wrote: wait a minuit, if u run it,which player do you spawn as?
I think it's just based on who is player 1 and who is player 2 in the replay and the recreated game. That's what I attempted to copy when testing it, anyway.
On April 14 2012 08:34 tianGO wrote: Does this work with the starter edition? It'd be great to avoid risking your account. I think you can play any replay with the Starter edition, so maybe it works.
It works but you're limited to replays with a Terran (or 2 Terrans if you're using 2 starter editions) on one of the maps available to the starter edition (Xel'Naga Caverns, Shattered Temple, and a few custom mode maps) because you need to start an actual game, not just view a replay.
On April 14 2012 07:00 RAW-BERRY wrote: To everyone here herp derping, and complaining about Blizzard's lazyness, just fucking stop. Seriously. You have don't have the slightest clue as to what it is you're talking about. There's much more to it than putting a hack together and releasing it to the masses as separate software.
While I agree with you that it would take much longer to make this a proper and polished feature inside of SC2, I still feel this feature is still a reasonable request from the community.
Before it turns into a flame war, I would just like to point out that this and watching shared replays share a bunch of features. I expect the reason we dont have either is not because blizz doesn't want us to have it, but rather because in order to redesign the replay system, they have to re-enter QA, and if they do that, they might as well throw an entire expansion around it
EDIT: furthermore, an alternate feature is for a player to enter into a game that is already running. In general, this is a good idea (for obsing and such).
I 100% agree. There's no reason to go releasing new features with Wings of Liberty when HotS is right around the corner. I have a strong suspicion that we're going to see a lot of features in HotS that the community has been wanting. I just don't like baseless accusations regarding systems people don't have the slightest clue about.
On April 14 2012 08:54 JackDT wrote: It's just priorities. Someone has to allocate an engineer to work on this for a couple weeks. If that guy makes more money for the company by fixing a problem in the WoW server, they have him doing that instead.
That said, enough people bugging Blizzard about this should eventually get them to move this up the list.
On April 14 2012 08:52 fezvez wrote: So, I'll jump into the bandwagon. As someone who knows a bit of coding (well, it's my job in a way after all), and basing myself upon some assumptions that I can consider reasonable : - Of course Blizzard programmers are able to do it. Even more, they've already given in their libraries most of the functions to do it. The source is only 300 lines of code (for the replay part, not the surrounding stuff, i.e GUI, buttons, etc...) because most of it was already here - Still, mad props to incredible OP for reverse engineering - I would say that it is at most a one month patch if there was any will to do it. (Including the very numerous internal playtesters, and a deployment on the PTR)
What to think about it? Well, Blizzard could've implemented it if they wanted to. Pretty quickly too, it wouldn't have strained their resources. I'm not so sure what occupies their day right now. I just hope it's worth it (HotS?)
Edit : Blizzard is probably not lazy. (By the way, I've been at their stand at the GDC '12, I can assure you that even the aspiring programmers were nothing to scoff at, I'd like to see how skilled those who managed to pass the entrance test fare). More likely, they are using their resources in something else than adding minor patches to SC2. Is it a good strategy? I don't know, I code, I don't manage stuff.
Pretty much that. Is it possible? Yes. Is it easy? Looks like it (at least at a low level - design/UI/testing etc. is extra cost).
But add up all the features that the community is screaming for and you've got many man-months worth of effort. It does strain their resources, because you put one guy working on this, then he's not working on what he was doing (HoTs perhaps). It's not like Blizz has some spare programmers just sitting around waiting for stuff like this to pop up, simply because that'd be bad resource management.
You push all this stuff now, then HoTS gets delayed. You put it in the original WoL release, then that gets delayed. That may have been the smarter decision given the community reaction, but then the community bought the game anyway despite these missing features, so one can't blame Blizzard for wanting to cash in some of their chips a little early.
I'm not saying Blizzard should be immune to criticism, but a little perspective could be called for. It''d be nice to have these kind of threads without numerous posts from the Blizzard hate train.
I hear a lot of "this would be easy to do", but you've actually gone and done it. I'm super impressed.
In a world where people feel entitled to complain about things, you are a man with a solution. I hope the argument 'some guy on the internet did it in C++' will help people to compel Blizzard to implement it for real.
The solution as it stands seems a bit like it will always be a bit buggy. I don't currently have the programming knowledge, but I'd like to suggest an alternate solution to accomplish the ability to resume a game.
Alternate solution: Rather than go directly into a custom game and replay the game, why not go into the map editor and create a map that recreates the state at the exact end-point of the game? Then you could publish and load it up as a custom game and finish playing it out.
This way you aren't injecting anything into the game itself. Less bugs, no hack, less problems, but would require someone else to program it whereas we already have this solution.
On April 14 2012 07:00 RAW-BERRY wrote: To everyone here herp derping, and complaining about Blizzard's lazyness, just fucking stop. Seriously. You have don't have the slightest clue as to what it is you're talking about. There's much more to it than putting a hack together and releasing it to the masses as separate software.
While I agree with you that it would take much longer to make this a proper and polished feature inside of SC2, I still feel this feature is still a reasonable request from the community.
Before it turns into a flame war, I would just like to point out that this and watching shared replays share a bunch of features. I expect the reason we dont have either is not because blizz doesn't want us to have it, but rather because in order to redesign the replay system, they have to re-enter QA, and if they do that, they might as well throw an entire expansion around it
EDIT: furthermore, an alternate feature is for a player to enter into a game that is already running. In general, this is a good idea (for obsing and such).
I 100% agree. There's no reason to go releasing new features with Wings of Liberty when HotS is right around the corner. I have a strong suspicion that we're going to see a lot of features in HotS that the community has been wanting. I just don't like baseless accusations regarding systems people don't have the slightest clue about.
No reason in making a game better? We should just wait for the expansion? Are you high? That is an awful mindset. Now perhaps it is unfair to expect them to make such a large change when they have a planned expansion, but this seems rather awful that Blizzard is extorting us for more money by NOT fixing huge and obvious flaws, not to mention I doubt they will fix them in HotS. "we're going to see a lot of features in HotS that the community has been wanting." LOL. Are you aware HotS is being made by BLIZZARD? Honestly I can't believe you could possibly believe that Blizzard will do anything like LAN or this or other features the community has been moaning about ever since B.net 2.0 was conceived in any of their future games.
The OP's program would be a 3rd party program for tournaments, not ladder. And if it works the way it should, it should remove situations like the MKP vs Parting GSTL debacle. I think it would be silly for Blizzard to use something like this when there are much much simpler ways to fix the games ending on disconnect, and sure we would definitely have to wait for HotS for them to implement something that would fix it, but the fact remains that this problem has ALWAYS existed, but in BW there was LAN for tournaments, but now there is nothing.
On April 14 2012 07:00 RAW-BERRY wrote: To everyone here herp derping, and complaining about Blizzard's lazyness, just fucking stop. Seriously. You have don't have the slightest clue as to what it is you're talking about. There's much more to it than putting a hack together and releasing it to the masses as separate software.
While I agree with you that it would take much longer to make this a proper and polished feature inside of SC2, I still feel this feature is still a reasonable request from the community.
Before it turns into a flame war, I would just like to point out that this and watching shared replays share a bunch of features. I expect the reason we dont have either is not because blizz doesn't want us to have it, but rather because in order to redesign the replay system, they have to re-enter QA, and if they do that, they might as well throw an entire expansion around it
EDIT: furthermore, an alternate feature is for a player to enter into a game that is already running. In general, this is a good idea (for obsing and such).
I 100% agree. There's no reason to go releasing new features with Wings of Liberty when HotS is right around the corner. I have a strong suspicion that we're going to see a lot of features in HotS that the community has been wanting. I just don't like baseless accusations regarding systems people don't have the slightest clue about.
No reason in making a game better? We should just wait for the expansion? Are you high? That is an awful mindset. Now perhaps it is unfair to expect them to make such a large change when they have a planned expansion, but this seems rather awful that Blizzard is extorting us for more money by NOT fixing huge and obvious flaws, not to mention I doubt they will fix them in HotS. "we're going to see a lot of features in HotS that the community has been wanting." LOL. Are you aware HotS is being made by BLIZZARD? Honestly I can't believe you could possibly believe that Blizzard will do anything like LAN or this or other features the community has been moaning about ever since B.net 2.0 was conceived in any of their future games.
The OP's program would be a 3rd party program for tournaments, not ladder. And if it works the way it should, it should remove situations like the MKP vs Parting GSTL debacle. I think it would be silly for Blizzard to use something like this when there are much much simpler ways to fix the games ending on disconnect, and sure we would definitely have to wait for HotS for them to implement something that would fix it, but the fact remains that this problem has ALWAYS existed, but in BW there was LAN for tournaments, but now there is nothing.
If we're only talking about using this in tournaments, I'm pretty sure every tournament will be using HotS soon after it comes out.
I just find it amusing (in a general way, not in a point fingers sort of way) that I first saw this thread when it was about 2-3 pages long with everyone basically saying "1 post, do not trust," and now way later it's a spotlighted first post.
On April 14 2012 10:58 Oiseaux wrote: I just find it amusing (in a general way, not in a point fingers sort of way) that I first saw this thread when it was about 2-3 pages long with everyone basically saying "1 post, do not trust," and now way later it's a spotlighted first post.
Its since been checked im sure but in first page ppl werent necessarily good at checking for viruses etc.
Keep in mind that if Blizzard used a system like this, it's not enough to just code this and put it into the game, they'd also have to recode Warden to allow these memory changes. It's a lot more complicated to make a thing like this official than the unofficial version.
On April 14 2012 12:22 Antimatterz wrote: Basically, this guy lurks on TL for a year, then decides hes going to solve the biggest issue of SC2 with his first post.
Haha good point
Anyway, yeah I agree with the OP, it's a nice compromise between giving us the much-desired LAN, and Blizzard's position regarding losing a tonne of money if they did so. Gets rid of that source of controversy in big competitive matches.
Personally I don't really want it implemented in any way onto ladder though. I can imagine people would find a way to use it in a BM way, for example disconnecting when they have clearly lost so you'd be stuck waiting for a reconnect. With these kind of features, sadly you have to look at how it will be abused by the worst people in the community.
Yet another reason why TL wins at internet. This is awesome, and if something like it doesn't come along during HotS then we should incite a riot to get it implemented.
On April 14 2012 12:07 Chargelot wrote: Keep in mind that if Blizzard used a system like this, it's not enough to just code this and put it into the game, they'd also have to recode Warden to allow these memory changes. It's a lot more complicated to make a thing like this official than the unofficial version.
As a software engineer who works large enterprise software contracts I can assure that to implement this in the game properly would be trivial compared to this guy hacking working memory from a third party. Warden would not be an issue because Blizzard would write their own protected API's to accomplish the same goal in a much simpler manner instead of hacking it.
The real reason that they haven't implemented it is likely to do with the priorities they have set out. They're probably behind schedule like every single software patch known to man is and are trying to get to the final phases of regression testing for the last patch before HotS. Meanwhile features and fixes meant for the final patch are getting pushed to HotS itself and they're probably breaking shit all over the place and finding that they rebroke shit throughout their regression testing.
Even if they wanted to implement something like this right now, they probably wouldn't be able to get it out until first or second patch of HotS.
Probably I'm gonna get warned for this, but I just ROFL at Blizz, the company I used to respect is turning for money, money, money, money, money, money, money, money.... machine. IF THERE IS SOMETHING YOU CANT UNDERSTAND THE REASON FOR THIS IS PROBABLY MONEY.
On April 14 2012 13:36 entrust wrote: Probably I'm gonna get warned for this, but I just ROFL at Blizz, the company I used to respect is turning for money, money, money, money, money, money, money, money.... machine. IF THERE IS SOMETHING YOU CANT UNDERSTAND THE REASON FOR THIS IS PROBABLY MONEY.
And so you should. Blizzard are a commercial company, and have to actually pay people to make the games we enjoy playing. They are still active at patching their games and improving things, just because they don't implement EVERYTHING we demand doesn't mean they are money-grabbing, soulless and don't respect their fanbase.
On April 14 2012 13:36 entrust wrote: Probably I'm gonna get warned for this, but I just ROFL at Blizz, the company I used to respect is turning for money, money, money, money, money, money, money, money.... machine. IF THERE IS SOMETHING YOU CANT UNDERSTAND THE REASON FOR THIS IS PROBABLY MONEY.
And so you should. Blizzard are a commercial company, and have to actually pay people to make the games we enjoy playing. They are still active at patching their games and improving things, just because they don't implement EVERYTHING we demand doesn't mean they are money-grabbing, soulless and don't respect their fanbase.
I understand that they are commercial, but there is a limit to everything. You can't keep everyone happy I know, but I've been following this for about 10 years and it's never been as bad as it is. EDIT: I played their every game and still they are the best, but they were far ahead now they are just ahead. I hope this is just a slump, because other companies especially Valve I think is catching up quickly. Not to disrespect or anything, but this fat guy from them know his stuff. ( I don't know his name -.-)
On April 14 2012 13:36 entrust wrote: Probably I'm gonna get warned for this, but I just ROFL at Blizz, the company I used to respect is turning for money, money, money, money, money, money, money, money.... machine. IF THERE IS SOMETHING YOU CANT UNDERSTAND THE REASON FOR THIS IS PROBABLY MONEY.
... We've got ourselves a true martyr here.
Anyways. This is phenomenal, Blizzard. Hire this man. Give him a seven digit salary. Fire everyone else.
On April 14 2012 13:36 entrust wrote: Probably I'm gonna get warned for this, but I just ROFL at Blizz, the company I used to respect is turning for money, money, money, money, money, money, money, money.... machine. IF THERE IS SOMETHING YOU CANT UNDERSTAND THE REASON FOR THIS IS PROBABLY MONEY.
And so you should. Blizzard are a commercial company, and have to actually pay people to make the games we enjoy playing. They are still active at patching their games and improving things, just because they don't implement EVERYTHING we demand doesn't mean they are money-grabbing, soulless and don't respect their fanbase.
I understand that they are commercial, but there is a limit to everything. You can't keep everyone happy I know, but I've been following this for about 10 years and it's never been as bad as it is. EDIT: I played their every game and still they are the best, but they were far ahead now they are just ahead. I hope this is just a slump, because other companies especially Valve I think is catching up quickly. Not to disrespect or anything, but this fat guy from them know his stuff. ( I don't know his name -.-)
Fair point, I mean I'm speaking as a guy who's played Blizz games above all else since Diablo 1, it's a shame that they're not quite as good as they used to be We can always blame Activision!
On April 14 2012 13:36 entrust wrote: Probably I'm gonna get warned for this, but I just ROFL at Blizz, the company I used to respect is turning for money, money, money, money, money, money, money, money.... machine. IF THERE IS SOMETHING YOU CANT UNDERSTAND THE REASON FOR THIS IS PROBABLY MONEY.
... We've got ourselves a true martyr here.
Anyways. This is phenomenal, Blizzard. Hire this man. Give him a seven digit salary. Fire everyone else.
I'm just going to defend my stance, just like you can praise Blizzard, I can bash them. Maybe in eyes of most people I'm just a next complainer, but in my eyes I'm a loyal customer. I can explain why I think this way, but it's not that I'm gonna change something anyway. Sorry that I went offtopic, but I really think this thing that this guy came up with is a great idea. On a side note 5 digits would be enough for me, I'm a simple man.
The fact that people believe the programmers who programmed an incredibly complex game don't how to put in a simple feature like this amazes to the extent that i want to shoot said people.
You sir are the DaVinci of starcraft. It's an amazing tool but I doubt any tournament will be using it since it may be considered a bannable 3rd party program... Why oh you brizzurd~!
Let's assume that they want to do this. I am not sure how long it would take for it to be implemented. Looking at the UI thread, they have been saying that these things (clan, shared replays, etc.) have been in the works for quite some time.
Just saying that even if they do wish to implement this, it won't be for quite some time.
It doesn't matter. The issue is that some rookie coder can make LAN/Reconnect/Start game from replay modifications to their game, but the company itself doesn't bother. Blizzard is a collection of greedy/stupid game designers that fuck up everything they touch now. They just plain don't understand why BW was the best. I don't see how because it is well shown in everything that is BW, but they can't even get the basics down with their "new" game even though all it is, is updated graphics and a few new units. I would have rather waited a few more years than had a game like WoL come out uncompleted and shittier than SCBW(other than graphics ofc lol)
I would like to request that the mods keep this thread open. I posted a thread about Blizzard adding a functionality to save games or adding some time of mechanism to resume games several days ago:
Unfortunately, it was closed by GMarshal. I disagree with GMarshal for closing that thead, because low and behold, somebody has gone and made a utility that addresses the problem of disconnects that has benefitted the community within 6 days of my original post. The community really needs a utility like this (especially for multiplayer games) so that we can avoid future embarassments at tournaments when players disconnect - such as the GSTL finals.
I hope the mods keep this thread open this time because we want to see that you care about making SC2 a better game.
On April 14 2012 14:48 StarcraftMan wrote: I would like to request that the mods keep this thread open. I posted a thread about Blizzard adding a functionality to save games or adding some time of mechanism to resume games several days ago:
Unfortunately, it was closed by GMarshal. I disagree with GMarshal for closing that thead, because low and behold, somebody has gone and made a utility that addresses the problem of disconnects that has benefitted the community within 6 days of my original post. The community really needs a utility like this (especially for multiplayer games) so that we can avoid future embarassments at tournaments when players disconnect - such as the GSTL finals.
I hope the mods keep this thread open this time because we want to see that you care about making SC2 a better game.
I would PM and the mod and talk with him about it. I don't know if this post will get you anywhere.
On April 14 2012 14:41 NoobSkills wrote: It doesn't matter. The issue is that some rookie coder can make LAN/Reconnect/Start game from replay modifications to their game, but the company itself doesn't bother. Blizzard is a collection of greedy/stupid game designers that fuck up everything they touch now. They just plain don't understand why BW was the best. I don't see how because it is well shown in everything that is BW, but they can't even get the basics down with their "new" game even though all it is, is updated graphics and a few new units. I would have rather waited a few more years than had a game like WoL come out uncompleted and shittier than SCBW(other than graphics ofc lol)
Luckily, you can still play BW. Why don't you go do that and stop polluting this forum with mindless ranting?
On April 14 2012 14:41 NoobSkills wrote: It doesn't matter. The issue is that some rookie coder can make LAN/Reconnect/Start game from replay modifications to their game, but the company itself doesn't bother. Blizzard is a collection of greedy/stupid game designers that fuck up everything they touch now. They just plain don't understand why BW was the best. I don't see how because it is well shown in everything that is BW, but they can't even get the basics down with their "new" game even though all it is, is updated graphics and a few new units. I would have rather waited a few more years than had a game like WoL come out uncompleted and shittier than SCBW(other than graphics ofc lol)
Luckily, you can still play BW. Why don't you go do that and stop polluting this forum with mindless ranting?
Dude he is not a single unit, we want our voice to be heard, because we have a point. It's not mindless ranting.
On April 14 2012 13:36 entrust wrote: Probably I'm gonna get warned for this, but I just ROFL at Blizz, the company I used to respect is turning for money, money, money, money, money, money, money, money.... machine. IF THERE IS SOMETHING YOU CANT UNDERSTAND THE REASON FOR THIS IS PROBABLY MONEY.
User was warned for this post
Why is this a problem? Do you forget Blizzard is a business? I'm sorry but here in the USA businesses aren't founded on giving people anything they want, no matter what the consequences.
Maybe high profile tournaments can receive a permission from blizzard to use this program in the case a disconnect! Then in the future we won't have any problems like the GSTL finals. Oh you dropped? Don't worry we got SuperCow's Replay Thingy.
I love how people are so naive about Blizzard; no, they won't hire him to programm, they won't permit large tournaments to use it, and they could've add this a while back, they didn't, why? I don't know and I don't care, they just didn't, was it difficult? I don't think so, but still they've got almost 2 years; maybe they didn't think of it... really?
The best thing (hopefuly) that Blizzard can do now is to implement this themselves (like, legally) with PTR and all that, AND THEN giving it to the public use, but they will never, never ever, say it's ok for us to use it, nor large tournaments.
On April 14 2012 14:41 NoobSkills wrote: It doesn't matter. The issue is that some rookie coder can make LAN/Reconnect/Start game from replay modifications to their game, but the company itself doesn't bother. Blizzard is a collection of greedy/stupid game designers that fuck up everything they touch now. They just plain don't understand why BW was the best. I don't see how because it is well shown in everything that is BW, but they can't even get the basics down with their "new" game even though all it is, is updated graphics and a few new units. I would have rather waited a few more years than had a game like WoL come out uncompleted and shittier than SCBW(other than graphics ofc lol)
Luckily, you can still play BW. Why don't you go do that and stop polluting this forum with mindless ranting?
Sorry to offend you, I don't know how it happened, but I guess it did.
My point was simply if other games can do it OR SCBW had it why not SC2? I like SC2, perhaps it isn't as excellent as SCBW yet, but soon it could be the only issue is, is that the company backing the game is acting like they're in the stone age and can't create the stuff to sustain an esport based off their game.
There are many ways to solve the problem of disconnects and this is one way of doing it. Here is a quick list of ideas Blizzard can do to solve disconnects:
1) Continuing from a replay like this program is doing 2) Saving the game to a file on a disconnect so that you can reload the game and continue as normal. 3) Directly adding a reconnect feature 4) .... 5) ....
If it's too difficult to do in one way, Blizzard can look at doing it in another way. Blizzard simply needs a cost effective and least time consuming way to implement a fix for this. I think we need to communicate to Blizzard that we want game resumption from a disconnect bo be a priority - maybe Blizzard will make this a priority if they listen to us.
On April 14 2012 14:41 NoobSkills wrote: It doesn't matter. The issue is that some rookie coder can make LAN/Reconnect/Start game from replay modifications to their game, but the company itself doesn't bother. Blizzard is a collection of greedy/stupid game designers that fuck up everything they touch now. They just plain don't understand why BW was the best. I don't see how because it is well shown in everything that is BW, but they can't even get the basics down with their "new" game even though all it is, is updated graphics and a few new units. I would have rather waited a few more years than had a game like WoL come out uncompleted and shittier than SCBW(other than graphics ofc lol)
Luckily, you can still play BW. Why don't you go do that and stop polluting this forum with mindless ranting?
Dude he is not a single unit, we want our voice to be heard, because we have a point. It's not mindless ranting.
Ok.
Blizzard is a collection of greedy/stupid game designers that fuck up everything they touch now.
That's no point, that's ranting.
I'm all for reasonable criticism. Criticism that assumes Blizzard has infinite time and resources and exists in a world where money doesn't exist I won't tolerate.
On April 14 2012 16:34 BoxingKangaroo wrote: That's no point, that's ranting.
I'm all for reasonable criticism. Criticism that assumes Blizzard has infinite time and resources and exists in a world where money doesn't exist I won't tolerate.
You are right that Blizzard, like any other company, operates on a finite budget and has finite resources.
However, Blizzard has not made continuing a game after a disconnect a priority. It's been 2 years and Blizzard has done nothing to address this issue. We're hoping that after the disconnect between MKP and PartinG at GSTL, and with community feedback, maybe they will make it a priority again.
Would be great if Dustin Bowder or other members of the SC2 team get ahold of this program. I think the community wants the ability to continue a game from a disconnect and it's a shame that it took a disconnect at the GSTL finals in front of Mike Morhaime and Dustin Bowder to convince Blizzard that this should be a priority.
Wow I wasn't expecting this to only be done via memory injection, but I suppose it is the easiest if you know what to do.
Certainly faster than uploading a custom version of a map, running a replay reader program, then copy and pasting that information into the map to replay it.
Maybe not much more convenient, but certainly seems like tons less work.
On April 14 2012 03:18 mmagic wrote: I'm wondering how does this work in SC2 Starter Edition? Can started edition players play with any race by using this trick? I mean they are allowed to only play Human race but with this trick can they play zerg or protoss by swithcing race with the opponent?
There's already a rather simple method to play as protoss or zerg with the starter edition. Just get a full edition player to host a game, the starter edition player goes on his team, and when the game starts the full edition player just leaves, giving the starter edition player control of his stuff.
You could also probably use a hack to play non-starter edition maps too (but obviously everyone playing has to use the same hack).
On April 14 2012 16:34 BoxingKangaroo wrote: That's no point, that's ranting.
I'm all for reasonable criticism. Criticism that assumes Blizzard has infinite time and resources and exists in a world where money doesn't exist I won't tolerate.
You are right that Blizzard, like any other company, operates on a finite budget and has finite resources.
However, Blizzard has not made continuing a game after a disconnect a priority. It's been 2 years and Blizzard has done nothing to address this issue. We're hoping that after the disconnect between MKP and PartinG at GSTL, and with community feedback, maybe they will make it a priority again.
Would be great if Dustin Bowder or other members of the SC2 team get ahold of this program. I think the community wants the ability to continue a game from a disconnect and it's a shame that it took a disconnect at the GSTL finals in front of Mike Morhaime and Dustin Bowder to convince Blizzard that this should be a priority.
On April 14 2012 01:27 Excalibur_Z wrote: It's sweeping, as far as I'm aware. In any event, can't be too careful. Blizzard has been notified about this tool but it's still good to be cautious.
Has Blizzard's anti-hacking team been notified of this tool or has Dustin Bowder been notified of this tool? If Blizzard's anti-hacking team had been notified, the tool may not make a difference in Blizzard's priorities.
If Dustin Bowder has been notified of this tool, maybe it will light his a** up to make continuing games from disconnects a priority for the next PTR or one of the PTRs down the road.
so how does this work with 2 players? do both people choose the replay and select the time then enter a lobby and start? How does it work with observers?
Also, you should try and add in a feature that pauses the game at the specified time once it reaches there, then have a 3-5 second count down so players can get ready.
On April 14 2012 05:26 dnld12 wrote: SEND THIS TO MIKE AND BROWDER IMMEDIATELY. YOU SIR DESERVE A MEDAL!
:D Good job
Seriously, does anybody know how we can get this to Dustin Bowder? It would be a shame if Dustin Bowder does not get ahold of this work - if Dustin Bowder sees this program, it may convince him to make continuing a match from a disconnect a priority for one of the coming PTRs.
On April 14 2012 08:52 fezvez wrote: So, I'll jump into the bandwagon. As someone who knows a bit of coding (well, it's my job in a way after all), and basing myself upon some assumptions that I can consider reasonable : - Of course Blizzard programmers are able to do it. Even more, they've already given in their libraries most of the functions to do it. The source is only 300 lines of code (for the replay part, not the surrounding stuff, i.e GUI, buttons, etc...) because most of it was already here - Still, mad props to incredible OP for reverse engineering - I would say that it is at most a one month patch if there was any will to do it. (Including the very numerous internal playtesters, and a deployment on the PTR)
What to think about it? Well, Blizzard could've implemented it if they wanted to. Pretty quickly too, it wouldn't have strained their resources. I'm not so sure what occupies their day right now. I just hope it's worth it (HotS?)
As a programmer myself, I would side with you. While we can't be 100% sure that it is easy for Blizzard to implement because we've never seen their source code, it could be very likely that Blizzard could get some type of a fix to resume a game after a disconnect within one or two PTRs if they made it a priority.
On April 14 2012 12:47 Ziggitz wrote: As a software engineer who works large enterprise software contracts I can assure that to implement this in the game properly would be trivial compared to this guy hacking working memory from a third party. Warden would not be an issue because Blizzard would write their own protected API's to accomplish the same goal in a much simpler manner instead of hacking it.
As a programmer, this is my intuition too, although I have not seen SC2's source code. I really hope Dustin Bowder sees this and asks the team how hard it would be to a functionality like this in the next PTR or one of the future PTRs.
On April 14 2012 18:05 TheBloodyDwarf wrote: Every other RTS game have this already inside the game like Age of Empires (Since 2000 (not remember did aoe1 had it already, 1996))
So Blizzard is coming late like always, always behind in everything (especially in graphics)
No Blizzard is coming first always, always when it is about balance. And THIS is the most important thing. Graphics are so unimportant tbh.
On April 14 2012 18:05 TheBloodyDwarf wrote: Every other RTS game have this already inside the game like Age of Empires (Since 2000 (not remember did aoe1 had it already, 1996))
So Blizzard is coming late like always, always behind in everything (especially in graphics)
No Blizzard is coming first always, always when it is about balance. And THIS is the most important thing. Graphics are so unimportant tbh.
Well, if Blizzard is coming first always at balance. Why then Blizzard havent have even yet this in sc2? This is part of balance. BIG PART OF. Over 12 years later than aoe if they get this into game this year xD
On April 14 2012 12:47 Ziggitz wrote: As a software engineer who works large enterprise software contracts I can assure that to implement this in the game properly would be trivial compared to this guy hacking working memory from a third party. Warden would not be an issue because Blizzard would write their own protected API's to accomplish the same goal in a much simpler manner instead of hacking it.
As a programmer, this is my intuition too, although I have not seen SC2's source code. I really hope Dustin Bowder sees this and asks the team how hard it would be to a functionality like this in the next PTR or one of the future PTRs.
Dude, if you use someones name in nearly every single comment you make, try to get it right :p It's Browder, Dustin Browder
On April 14 2012 14:41 NoobSkills wrote: It doesn't matter. The issue is that some rookie coder can make LAN/Reconnect/Start game from replay modifications to their game, but the company itself doesn't bother. Blizzard is a collection of greedy/stupid game designers that fuck up everything they touch now. They just plain don't understand why BW was the best. I don't see how because it is well shown in everything that is BW, but they can't even get the basics down with their "new" game even though all it is, is updated graphics and a few new units. I would have rather waited a few more years than had a game like WoL come out uncompleted and shittier than SCBW(other than graphics ofc lol)
Luckily, you can still play BW. Why don't you go do that and stop polluting this forum with mindless ranting?
Sorry to offend you, I don't know how it happened, but I guess it did.
My point was simply if other games can do it OR SCBW had it why not SC2? I like SC2, perhaps it isn't as excellent as SCBW yet, but soon it could be the only issue is, is that the company backing the game is acting like they're in the stone age and can't create the stuff to sustain an esport based off their game.
lol @ don't know how it happened.
Just wanted to remind you that for alot of people SC2 > SCBW. Even in the game state we have now.
And can't create or sustain an esport? What do you call this we have now with one of the most amazing esports scene we have right now in sc2? I have never seen a game unite all of the world in wanting to play it this much.
Usually it's "over here we have shooting games, and over here we have fighting games" and "This game is popular in eu and this na" etc.
On April 14 2012 18:36 darkness wrote: I've read some of the pages, but all of 26 is too much. Can anyone please say if this program is indeed trustworthy?
I've tried it and it works but I'm not going to guarantee anyone that it won't harm their computer or get them banned from SC2. Use at your own risk.
On April 14 2012 18:36 darkness wrote: I've read some of the pages, but all of 26 is too much. Can anyone please say if this program is indeed trustworthy?
Yeah, only positive reports, and as far as the source code is visible there is nothing harmful in it.
Cool idea I wouldn't use it however because you could be banned by Blizzard.Would probably be hard to refine everything and make sure it's not laggy and stuff.
On April 13 2012 17:50 Jakalo wrote: I appreciate your effort but showing it to Blizzard or TL will not change anything, they already know how to do it, but don`t want to bother, we can`t influence (much). One thing that might pressure blizzard is showing this to tournament organizers, who tend to get bad publicity after disconnects such as GOM, MLG, IEM. If they saw how relatively easy is to implement it they could influence Blizzard to implement it, I hope.
I agree. Is there a way we can show this to MLG, IPL, GOM, etc? Blizzard does listen to the big tournament organizers. If MLG, IPL GOM, NASL, etc, all made a request to Dustin Browder to implement this feature, it might actually be done by Blizzard in a future PTR.
On April 14 2012 18:36 darkness wrote: I've read some of the pages, but all of 26 is too much. Can anyone please say if this program is indeed trustworthy?
I was one of the first that tried it, and as far as I could tell from the source code there is nothing bad about it. After testing it and see that it worked I rebooted the computer into safe mode and did a 4 hour rootkit/malware/virus scan just to be sure and nothing showed up, my computer was clean. From What I can tell the program is legit.
Is no one else at all concerned by any of the preprocessor shennanigans then? I mean, for starters it redefines "WIN32", and points it at struct it defines itself in util.lib...
On April 14 2012 21:05 jumai wrote: Is no one else at all concerned by any of the preprocessor shennanigans then? I mean, for starters it redefines "WIN32", and points it at struct it defines itself in util.lib...
On April 13 2012 14:14 Severian wrote: Pfft. In the time it took you to write that program, Blizzard could have easily made chat windows resizable in both the x and y dimensions.
That is actually a lot more work than you probably think. Its not just a case of turning on some bool properties on a premade control. You have to write that stuff, then you have word wrapping (think cultures and locations) ... consideration of images in the boxes ... how does line wrapping interfere wit the box for typing or the max number of lines on screen. Resizable windows being written from scratch actually IS a lot of work. Wheras a fixed width chat screen is a fraction of the work and does 80% of the job.
Probably as much as what this dude has done.
However the point is that resuming games really is technically possible - as peopel have long suspected - due to the existance of replays.
Its a piece of code, yes its probably messy because noone paid him to do it. A fake is a programming concept used for testing and is probably a wrapper object that replaces the actual code in an object with nothing so that objects that use it can be tested without assuming the dependancies implementation. Is it evil? No quite the opposite, it makes me think the guy knows what hes doing.
Cant say ive ever done anything like this. Nice job OP, that's given me ideas!
Dont you know what is first on their so called "priority list" ? First on their list is obviously "collapsable rocks" since they still dont work properly and they are under high pressure to get it done before heart of the swarm. Second on the list is obviously "destructible collabsables", the new enhanced version of the collapsable rocks.
On April 14 2012 21:32 MrTortoise wrote: However the point is that resuming games really is technically possible - as peopel have long suspected - due to the existance of replays.
We're not even asking Blizzard for the most comprehensive and most complex solution for resuming after a disconnect. For instance, I would guess that implementing reconnect into a multiplayer game (especially in a 4vs4 match) is probably much more complicated and takes much more time to program.
All we're asking for is a simple way to resume a game from a disconnect, even if that means forcing everybody into the lobby again for a game reload. Blizzard just needs to make this a priority - maybe with community pressure and pressure from the big tournament organizers, Blizzard may consider making this a priority.
SuperCow, you sir are a genius. I know a whole bunch of people have talked about how it could actually be done, but you actually went ahead and reverse engineered the code to make it work.
Now, we simply need to get all the major tournament organizers informed of just how easy this is to implement and maybe Blizzard will have this feature ready for HoTS.
On April 14 2012 21:32 MrTortoise wrote: However the point is that resuming games really is technically possible - as peopel have long suspected - due to the existance of replays.
We're not even asking Blizzard for the most comprehensive and most complex solution for resuming after a disconnect. For instance, I would guess that implementing reconnect into a multiplayer game (especially in a 4vs4 match) is probably much more complicated and takes much more time to program.
All we're asking for is a simple way to resume a game from a disconnect, even if that means forcing everybody into the lobby again for a game reload. Blizzard just needs to make this a priority - maybe with community pressure and pressure from the big tournament organizers, Blizzard may consider making this a priority.
And why exactly do they need to move that up on their priority list ? i for one couldnt care less about a feature that helps in a case that happens every few month once. There are far more important tasks like 1.5 and HoTs that should be on top of the priority list. Yes disconnects in a tournament eviroment suck but how often does this really happen ? Even once at every tournament would still be such a small amount of games.... cant belive ppl make such a fuss about this when there are other obvious flaws that hinder every day gaming.
You'd be foolish if you sincerely believed that Blizzard developing team can't implement such a feature...
The question is more, why they don't want to do it... They might have other objectives currently...
Still, gratz for actually coding the stuff and not just pretending it's easy to do, this way all the non-programmers TL members will now be convinced. However, I doubt any tournament organization would accept a third party software...
On April 14 2012 22:58 SiroKO wrote: You'd be foolish if you sincerely believed that Blizzard developing team can't implement such a feature...
The question is more, why they don't want to do it... They might have other objectives currently...
Still, gratz for actually coding the stuff and not just pretending it's easy to do, this way all the non-programmers TL members will now be convinced. However, I doubt any tournament organization would accept a third party software...
because they are a capitalist business. theres no money in making it so they divert 0 resources to it.
Oh yeah, I also fixed so chat from the replay doesn't appear after the point at which the replay was supposed to be stopped. Maybe noone noticed. I'll pretend it worked from the start.
On April 14 2012 23:49 TheSuperCow wrote: Oh yeah, I also fixed so chat from the replay doesn't appear after the point at which the replay was supposed to be stopped. Maybe noone noticed. I'll pretend it worked from the start.
If only Blizzard would let the big tournaments use this program ... unfortunately, I doubt that would happen.
Good work TheSuperCow! It was amazing what you did and the time that you did it in!
On April 14 2012 22:58 SiroKO wrote: You'd be foolish if you sincerely believed that Blizzard developing team can't implement such a feature...
The question is more, why they don't want to do it... They might have other objectives currently...
Still, gratz for actually coding the stuff and not just pretending it's easy to do, this way all the non-programmers TL members will now be convinced. However, I doubt any tournament organization would accept a third party software...
because they are a capitalist business. theres no money in making it so they divert 0 resources to it.
Yeah, because who ever made money off of making your customers happy...
Anyway, while i guess it's fun to bash blizzard, its also pretty easy to come up with reasons why the devs are working on other things. Talk to any decent dev and ask them what they'd LIKE to do if they had the time. They'll be able to talk your ear off.
Then there's the whole issue of making sure that everyone at a big company still has jobs. While this is a cool , it's nothing significant in that respect. It doesn't trump things like finish HotS and make it good.
Great post and effort OP. I've got to say I thought of this idea before too! But I see some people concentrating on its uses as a way to resume a disconnected game (which could definitely be valid). However, wouldn't the best use of this to be as a way to intensely practice your starcraft 2 game?? For instance, imagine holding a certain push is the hardest thing for you right now. You and your friend can play a game up to the push(i.e. 1/1/1 or 4 gate or some zerg roach push vs P) with the appropriate units/macro. Then you can continually replay that scenario over and over. You could also take that same scenario and try it vs friends. It would be fantastic if Blizz could develop this into a native capability of SC2.
On April 14 2012 22:58 SiroKO wrote: You'd be foolish if you sincerely believed that Blizzard developing team can't implement such a feature...
The question is more, why they don't want to do it... They might have other objectives currently...
Still, gratz for actually coding the stuff and not just pretending it's easy to do, this way all the non-programmers TL members will now be convinced. However, I doubt any tournament organization would accept a third party software...
because they are a capitalist business. theres no money in making it so they divert 0 resources to it.
Yeah, because who ever made money off of making your customers happy...
Anyway, while i guess it's fun to bash blizzard, its also pretty easy to come up with reasons why the devs are working on other things. Talk to any decent dev and ask them what they'd LIKE to do if they had the time. They'll be able to talk your ear off.
Then there's the whole issue of making sure that everyone at a big company still has jobs. While this is a cool , it's nothing significant in that respect. It doesn't trump things like finish HotS and make it good.
Why is it bashing to point out obvious mistakes? In the development phase of an online only game, who could have possibly thought that connection issues might become an issue? The piracy concerns are perfectly valid, and Blizzard can do whatever they consider beneficial for their business. They have good reasons to create a walled garden where everything is under their control. But the fact that connection issues still remain today in the final product means:
1) They have never thought of it 2) Dismissed it in favor of other efforts 3) Is too cost ineffective to implement in the already existing framework especially considering scaling issues and B.net reprogramming
And that is what you can and should be able to call either ignorance or design failure. There are only two possibilities: either it
1) is relatively easy to integrate or 2) is not relatively easy to integrate
given their actual realization of the current B.net infrastructure. In the first case it's ignorance. You can always say "But there are more important things to work on now". Yeah, there's a new expansion coming up. We're too busy to give you the Arcade. No, there is Into the Void coming up, we're too busy to implement in-game purchases. No, we're currently busy with SC3, etc. Blizzard is being criticized for choosing other things. I criticize them because solving the connection issue first and foremost is my preference. They might not agree, that's their decision. But I still can say I don't like their choice which things to prioritize.
The second case is mere bad design. Other companies, comparable in size and resources, or even much smaller, have been able to take care of the issue. Others have designed their backend to be easily extendable. To say "it's not cost effective" means your framework sucks. To say "but our framework is easily extendable, fact is it is impossible to predict every possible issue in the future" is admitting they didn't consider connection in an online only game. And both cases are just that- examples of bad design.
On April 14 2012 22:58 SiroKO wrote: You'd be foolish if you sincerely believed that Blizzard developing team can't implement such a feature...
The question is more, why they don't want to do it... They might have other objectives currently...
Still, gratz for actually coding the stuff and not just pretending it's easy to do, this way all the non-programmers TL members will now be convinced. However, I doubt any tournament organization would accept a third party software...
because they are a capitalist business. theres no money in making it so they divert 0 resources to it.
Yeah, because who ever made money off of making your customers happy...
Anyway, while i guess it's fun to bash blizzard, its also pretty easy to come up with reasons why the devs are working on other things. Talk to any decent dev and ask them what they'd LIKE to do if they had the time. They'll be able to talk your ear off.
Then there's the whole issue of making sure that everyone at a big company still has jobs. While this is a cool , it's nothing significant in that respect. It doesn't trump things like finish HotS and make it good.
HotS can look great all it wants, I'm not paying for it still. SC2 was way more expensive than WC3 and it's lacking in way too many functionalities for me to ignore. It's already 2 years, and they know damn well that connection was going to be a vital issue to make any competition on this game legit. If they're not going to do anything about it (not because they can't) and take customer loyalty for granted, then I wouldn't buy another copy, really. This is just so huge a turn off, and I was actually an ardent defender of Blizzard when they refused to implement LAN. Now where is this basic courtesy of making sure that competitions wouldn't have retarded issues like regames, when reconnection or multiplayer saves should have been in there when they aren't futuristic technology at all? Let's not kid ourselves that these are even ridiculously hard and costly to implement. I'm not buying that argument anymore.
I feel like this could be really cool for players trying to practice specifically late game or mid game strats. Like the first 5-10 minutes are pretty standard, so they could just fast-forward through that part to work on what the want. I know there are already custom maps that allow you to specify units and work on micro and things, but to load actual games and practice from mid-late game could end up being really helpful.
On April 14 2012 22:58 SiroKO wrote: You'd be foolish if you sincerely believed that Blizzard developing team can't implement such a feature...
The question is more, why they don't want to do it... They might have other objectives currently...
Still, gratz for actually coding the stuff and not just pretending it's easy to do, this way all the non-programmers TL members will now be convinced. However, I doubt any tournament organization would accept a third party software...
because they are a capitalist business. theres no money in making it so they divert 0 resources to it.
Ur dead wrong, you should of said They are a capitalist business, and there is money in making it, so they should divert resources into it
A quality game is a selling game.
No one wants to be DC'ed. No one wants a ref to determine the course of the game. Lots of tounry applications
On April 14 2012 22:58 SiroKO wrote: You'd be foolish if you sincerely believed that Blizzard developing team can't implement such a feature...
The question is more, why they don't want to do it... They might have other objectives currently...
Still, gratz for actually coding the stuff and not just pretending it's easy to do, this way all the non-programmers TL members will now be convinced. However, I doubt any tournament organization would accept a third party software...
because they are a capitalist business. theres no money in making it so they divert 0 resources to it.
Ur dead wrong, you should of said They are a capitalist business, and there is money in making it, so they should divert resources into it
A quality game is a selling game.
No one wants to be DC'ed. No one wants a ref to determine the course of the game. Lots of tounry applications
On April 14 2012 22:58 SiroKO wrote: You'd be foolish if you sincerely believed that Blizzard developing team can't implement such a feature...
The question is more, why they don't want to do it... They might have other objectives currently...
Still, gratz for actually coding the stuff and not just pretending it's easy to do, this way all the non-programmers TL members will now be convinced. However, I doubt any tournament organization would accept a third party software...
because they are a capitalist business. theres no money in making it so they divert 0 resources to it.
It's not like big companies always do the smart thing even for their bottom line. Anyone who has ever worked in a big corp knows they can be incredibly dysfunctional.
Tournaments and casuals would love this feature and it would go a huge way towards customer goodwill. It gives them a solid response to the people yelling for LAN. And it's fun for casuals and keeps the player base engaged. In my judgement, it's clearly the best for their bottom line in the long run.
On April 14 2012 23:41 turdburgler wrote: because they are a capitalist business. theres no money in making it so they divert 0 resources to it.
Ur dead wrong, you should of said They are a capitalist business, and there is money in making it, so they should divert resources into it
A quality game is a selling game.
No one wants to be DC'ed. No one wants a ref to determine the course of the game. Lots of tounry applications
There is more money in doing other things..
Not necessarily. Blizzard sees $$$ in e-sports. There's a reason the CEO of Blizzard, Mike Morhaime, is frequently seen at GOM, in Korea to personally discuss the terms with KESPA, attending IPL, etc. If there is no money in e-sports, I don't think Mike Morhaime would waste his time personally at e-sports events and e-sports discussions.
An ability to resume the game after a disconnect would make SC2 a better product for e-sports. I think if the community is vocal about disconnects ruining the SC2 experience at tournaments like the IPL, Blizzard would definitely consider devoting resources to fixing this, especially if it is not a complex nor time consuming fix for them.
On April 14 2012 23:49 TheSuperCow wrote: Oh yeah, I also fixed so chat from the replay doesn't appear after the point at which the replay was supposed to be stopped. Maybe noone noticed. I'll pretend it worked from the start.
Plausible deniability, gotta love it. Thanks for the great contribution, hopefully blizz will choose to work with the community instead of against us, now that a program like this has been popularized.
This is fucking genius. I can only imagine the applications. This is the perfect way to test "What ifs"... At the pro level, something like this is absolutely invaluable. Kudos to TheSuperCow!
On April 14 2012 22:58 SiroKO wrote: You'd be foolish if you sincerely believed that Blizzard developing team can't implement such a feature...
The question is more, why they don't want to do it... They might have other objectives currently...
Still, gratz for actually coding the stuff and not just pretending it's easy to do, this way all the non-programmers TL members will now be convinced. However, I doubt any tournament organization would accept a third party software...
because they are a capitalist business. theres no money in making it so they divert 0 resources to it.
Ur dead wrong, you should of said They are a capitalist business, and there is money in making it, so they should divert resources into it
A quality game is a selling game.
No one wants to be DC'ed. No one wants a ref to determine the course of the game. Lots of tounry applications
There is more money in doing other things..
Like what? Pissing of their consumers by not adding basic reconnect features for an e-sports title? That destroys consumer goodwill and makes them a less credible company in the eyes of many.
On April 15 2012 06:47 Medrea wrote: The possibilities of being able to restart a game from a certain point are endless.
Imagine the practice opportunities it could give,
This is true. Remember all those times casters said things like "I could win it from this position"? They could put their money where their mouth is.. there could be legendary end-game positions which you could play out yourself, like in chess, etc.
Awesome exercise but I would imagine this would never be a final implementation due to the fact that it relies on the setup of the program in memory meaning that there is a direct dependency between the two. Change the core and this fails without any compiler errors.
Still a large amount of credit for doing this work, certainly shows an implementation of how this can be performed and how the problem of disconnects can be fixed WITHOUT adding LAN. Lets hope that Blizz already have a more stable/maintainable implementation of this in the pipeline.
On April 14 2012 23:31 TheSuperCow edited the opening post: edit:
I made it so it pauses the game upon reaching the specified time, and it disables user input until then. [...] There is of course a few issues, the most notable right now is that it seems to matter who hosted/which order people joined. Most likely, the order joined/slot occupied by player must match with the originals from the replay, this is again most likely due to simple unit numbering internally in SC2, where the host's units are created first and so forth.
Oh, and control groups are not restored. At least not with regards to the user interface. There should be no issues with spawn positions as this is indirectly determined by the random seed, which is overridden. [...]
Nicely done adding the suggested pause and locking user input during fast forward.
It makes sense as a general approach for the game/render engine to go with numbered placeholders for players with the actual player names just being stored in a separate string table. These numbered placeholders invariably correspond to the UI slots that joining players fill when creating the custom game. So to make things work properly with the current implementation, this slot setting needs to be replicated. If Blizzard ever were to incorporate a resume feature like this into the client, they'd probably render a custom game UI with only the slots to fill found in the replay to be loaded and internally associate these slots with the placeholder IDs used in game instructions (build unit X for player 1, move unit X to x,y for player 2, etc.).
As for the missing control groups: Seeing as how replays viewed in the client have these, I am pretty sure the information about such control groups is indeed saved in the replay file. I assume there is a subroutine that needs to be called to visibly re-set these in the clients of those joining the custom game to resume the replay. Not sure how far you have gotten in reverse engineering the game/render engine APIs in that regard, but a little more digging might uncover such a subroutine to re-set and render the control groups in injected resume mode.
It makes sense that spawn positions are a function of the random seed. So it's just down to filling the proper slots of all the original participants (definitely players, possibly also observers and referees, especially if they typed chat I guess?) and picking the original map version with the same terrain to not bug out recorded unit commands. I do believe the map data is part of the replay as well, but I'm sure it would mean a lot more work to replace a randomly picked map when creating the host custom game with the map data from the replay in-memory.
If this was implemented, it would be the single best change for both practice (starting games at certain points) and tournaments (picking up after lag-outs) that Blizz could do with such a low amount of work actually required (supposedly).
I still feel iffy about downloading a 3rd party mod for SC2, but would love for Blizz to implement this.
On April 14 2012 22:58 SiroKO wrote: You'd be foolish if you sincerely believed that Blizzard developing team can't implement such a feature...
The question is more, why they don't want to do it... They might have other objectives currently...
Still, gratz for actually coding the stuff and not just pretending it's easy to do, this way all the non-programmers TL members will now be convinced. However, I doubt any tournament organization would accept a third party software...
because they are a capitalist business. theres no money in making it so they divert 0 resources to it.
Ur dead wrong, you should of said They are a capitalist business, and there is money in making it, so they should divert resources into it
A quality game is a selling game.
No one wants to be DC'ed. No one wants a ref to determine the course of the game. Lots of tounry applications
There is more money in doing other things..
Like what? Pissing of their consumers by not adding basic reconnect features for an e-sports title? That destroys consumer goodwill and makes them a less credible company in the eyes of many.
really? Heart of the Swarm is your answer. Gamer 'boycotts' have been a joke in the past. 99.99% of people will buy HoTS with or without this feature, thus making implementing it a cursory issue.
This program can improve your play. Seriously, awesome piece of code right here. Wanna see how you handle specific strategies/entry points at any point in the game? load up that part of the game and re-play the replay part of it.
On April 14 2012 22:58 SiroKO wrote: You'd be foolish if you sincerely believed that Blizzard developing team can't implement such a feature...
The question is more, why they don't want to do it... They might have other objectives currently...
Still, gratz for actually coding the stuff and not just pretending it's easy to do, this way all the non-programmers TL members will now be convinced. However, I doubt any tournament organization would accept a third party software...
because they are a capitalist business. theres no money in making it so they divert 0 resources to it.
Ur dead wrong, you should of said They are a capitalist business, and there is money in making it, so they should divert resources into it
A quality game is a selling game.
No one wants to be DC'ed. No one wants a ref to determine the course of the game. Lots of tounry applications
There is more money in doing other things..
Like what? Pissing of their consumers by not adding basic reconnect features for an e-sports title? That destroys consumer goodwill and makes them a less credible company in the eyes of many.
Unfortunately, those interested in competitive gaming are not the majority of their customers by a large margin
I think it has been said already, but blizzard can do a lot of things. This is one of them, so is LAN, etc But the question blizzard may ask is, is it worth the time and money? Maybe they will put this as a feature for HotS? Or maybe LotV
While I haven't used this to experience it, but if group memory editing is possible, couldn't you create a lan client that hosts games and communicates the current state (no idea on the speed) but it sounds reasonable.
Sir, you have singlehandedly cured the game!! This will mean there won't be anymore disconnects in the future in tournaments!! If you have a third-party host that could immediately load up the game again after a disconnect.. I mean, the uses for this program are just so freaking awesome!!
I'm lost for words man..
I'm just thinking of everything this can be used for.. Imagine pros watching a replay after a loss and trying to figure out what they did wrong and see if they could change a few things.. Its like going back in time almost!!... Dude.. You have just invented a SC2 TIME MACHINE... and yeah thats what you should call it...!!!
And i'm sure you can fix the controlgroup issue.. Cos they are loaded up when you load the replay, so maybe you are just missing some code somewhere?.. anyway man... AWESOME JOB!!
On April 15 2012 11:18 rotegirte wrote: Unfortunately, those interested in competitive gaming are not the majority of their customers by a large margin
Don't know about that. Alot of the SC2 playerbase are watching competitive SC2 now. Look at the turnout for MLG and IPL - the turnout has been stellar and growing.
TheSuperCow wrote: There is of course a few issues, the most notable right now is that it seems to matter who hosted/which order people joined. Most likely, the order joined/slot occupied by player must match with the originals from the replay, this is again most likely due to simple unit numbering internally in SC2, where the host's units are created first and so forth.
I don't know if you've already done this (I think replay viewers have this info?), but you should probably indicate the order the players joined the lobby/map (player numbers) in the GUI so that when it's remade they can get it right without much hassle.
TheSuperCow wrote: There is of course a few issues, the most notable right now is that it seems to matter who hosted/which order people joined. Most likely, the order joined/slot occupied by player must match with the originals from the replay, this is again most likely due to simple unit numbering internally in SC2, where the host's units are created first and so forth.
I don't know if you've already done this (I think replay viewers have this info?), but you should probably indicate the order the players joined the lobby/map (player numbers) in the GUI so that when it's remade they can get it right without much hassle.
That would be a lot more work and will not be easy. UI alterations is an entirely new can of worms that one might not want to open, and it definitely would go way beyond the scope of this proof of concept. So far this program does not replace functions of the game. It simply calls some more of its subroutines to achieve piggybacking replay instructions when opening a custom game. This would, however, be the most sensible way Blizzard could/would incorporate this into the client, as I mentioned earlier.
As it was stated - awesome piece of work. Great contribution to the community and hats off. As for Blizzard - unfortunately I'm slowly getting used to fact, that they're setting aside such 'small' functions. For me, those details matters as for 'online experience' - I know I'll buy HoTS anyway, but I'd be glad to see Blizzard putting just a little more effort in catering to those smaller features that make our lives easier.
On April 14 2012 22:58 SiroKO wrote: You'd be foolish if you sincerely believed that Blizzard developing team can't implement such a feature...
The question is more, why they don't want to do it... They might have other objectives currently...
Still, gratz for actually coding the stuff and not just pretending it's easy to do, this way all the non-programmers TL members will now be convinced. However, I doubt any tournament organization would accept a third party software...
because they are a capitalist business. theres no money in making it so they divert 0 resources to it.
Yeah, because who ever made money off of making your customers happy...
Anyway, while i guess it's fun to bash blizzard, its also pretty easy to come up with reasons why the devs are working on other things. Talk to any decent dev and ask them what they'd LIKE to do if they had the time. They'll be able to talk your ear off.
Then there's the whole issue of making sure that everyone at a big company still has jobs. While this is a cool , it's nothing significant in that respect. It doesn't trump things like finish HotS and make it good.
HotS can look great all it wants, I'm not paying for it still. SC2 was way more expensive than WC3 and it's lacking in way too many functionalities for me to ignore. It's already 2 years, and they know damn well that connection was going to be a vital issue to make any competition on this game legit. If they're not going to do anything about it (not because they can't) and take customer loyalty for granted, then I wouldn't buy another copy, really. This is just so huge a turn off, and I was actually an ardent defender of Blizzard when they refused to implement LAN. Now where is this basic courtesy of making sure that competitions wouldn't have retarded issues like regames, when reconnection or multiplayer saves should have been in there when they aren't futuristic technology at all? Let's not kid ourselves that these are even ridiculously hard and costly to implement. I'm not buying that argument anymore.
In what way was WC3 more expensive then SC2? Warcraft 3 was 60 dollar just like SC2 was.
Blizzard most likely won't support this and until their blessing has been given I do not see any tournaments taking this on board. It's a really well designed and well implemented system but it is a 3rd party program which most likely breaks the EULA and therefore is a bannable offense (assuming Blizzard care enough).
On April 15 2012 21:37 Jarvs wrote: Blizzard most likely won't support this and until their blessing has been given I do not see any tournaments taking this on board. It's a really well designed and well implemented system but it is a 3rd party program which most likely breaks the EULA and therefore is a bannable offense (assuming Blizzard care enough).
Still it is a great demonstration of "FUCK YOU BLIZZARD YOU SUCK FOR NOT SUPPORTING THIS", since a SuperCow could write this program which basically repairs the "No LAN" issue which cause questionable regames like for instance GSTL finals.
This is a pretty great feature, really hope Blizzard takes some notice. Seriously though SuperCow, you should try applying for some work at Blizzard haha, maybe an internship?
On April 15 2012 21:37 Jarvs wrote: Blizzard most likely won't support this and until their blessing has been given I do not see any tournaments taking this on board. It's a really well designed and well implemented system but it is a 3rd party program which most likely breaks the EULA and therefore is a bannable offense (assuming Blizzard care enough).
Still it is a great demonstration of "FUCK YOU BLIZZARD YOU SUCK FOR NOT SUPPORTING THIS", since a SuperCow could write this program which basically repairs the "No LAN" issue which cause questionable regames like for instance GSTL finals.
How exactly does this program fix the "No Lan" ? Still delay that make good micro impossible...
On April 15 2012 23:18 Ameisenmann wrote: I just wish Blizz would at least state that they tolerate this tool if they dont plan on ever doing something themselves anytime soon.
I think they will tolerate it. I dont think they will say this.
I saw plenty of people who used the disconnect cheat over 50 games in a row and never get banned. When they dont care for people, who obvious cheat they will not ban you for using such a tool.
Also i never heard about someone who got banned for using the" background switcher" or the "relocalisator". I used last one from beginning and never had a problem.
On April 15 2012 21:37 Jarvs wrote: Blizzard most likely won't support this and until their blessing has been given I do not see any tournaments taking this on board. It's a really well designed and well implemented system but it is a 3rd party program which most likely breaks the EULA and therefore is a bannable offense (assuming Blizzard care enough).
Still it is a great demonstration of "FUCK YOU BLIZZARD YOU SUCK FOR NOT SUPPORTING THIS", since a SuperCow could write this program which basically repairs the "No LAN" issue which cause questionable regames like for instance GSTL finals.
How exactly does this program fix the "No Lan" ? Still delay that make good micro impossible...
Of course it is not a perfect fix for No LAN, but it is a start, I hope you get my main point
On April 15 2012 23:02 skeldark wrote: what a scam! Still NO super cow power...
On April 15 2012 22:25 Grovbolle wrote:
On April 15 2012 21:37 Jarvs wrote: Blizzard most likely won't support this and until their blessing has been given I do not see any tournaments taking this on board. It's a really well designed and well implemented system but it is a 3rd party program which most likely breaks the EULA and therefore is a bannable offense (assuming Blizzard care enough).
Still it is a great demonstration of "FUCK YOU BLIZZARD YOU SUCK FOR NOT SUPPORTING THIS", since a SuperCow could write this program which basically repairs the "No LAN" issue which cause questionable regames like for instance GSTL finals.
How exactly does this program fix the "No Lan" ? Still delay that make good micro impossible...
Of course it is not a perfect fix for No LAN, but it is a start, I hope you get my main point
On April 15 2012 22:28 Zarahtra wrote: Really liked that NASL took this subject up and put some more pressure on blizzard. This is just amazing work
Really? What did they do?
This goes to show how feature empty B.net 0.2 is.
In their.. "what the community is thinking"(can't recall the true name) section, they talked about this program and how blizzard really needed to take a look at it
On April 15 2012 23:02 skeldark wrote: what a scam! Still NO super cow power...
On April 15 2012 22:25 Grovbolle wrote:
On April 15 2012 21:37 Jarvs wrote: Blizzard most likely won't support this and until their blessing has been given I do not see any tournaments taking this on board. It's a really well designed and well implemented system but it is a 3rd party program which most likely breaks the EULA and therefore is a bannable offense (assuming Blizzard care enough).
Still it is a great demonstration of "FUCK YOU BLIZZARD YOU SUCK FOR NOT SUPPORTING THIS", since a SuperCow could write this program which basically repairs the "No LAN" issue which cause questionable regames like for instance GSTL finals.
How exactly does this program fix the "No Lan" ? Still delay that make good micro impossible...
Of course it is not a perfect fix for No LAN, but it is a start, I hope you get my main point
I get it. Btw Sc2 lan servers already exist.
This, I've been trying to say this, but everywhere I post it, its shrugged off. Lan servers have existed for AT LEAST 4 months now, and are beginning to have enough functionality that they are being set up in ICCUP-like sites with launchers and ladders. While this is a beautiful piece of work that this guy has made, and will be a great help in regards to improving your play, and for tournaments where there are network issues. The whole fact that lan exists already is what should be getting pushed, not a workaround.
NOT AT ALL trying to downplay what this guy has done, I think it's excellent and have made use of it myself. Awesome stuff.
As a software developer by profession I must say that I have some understanding for blizzard. I have 120 hours of "should have" development and that pool is pretty much constant.
The "must have" things just keep coming
Now, why blizzard has not made this a "must have" I can't fathom. My hope is that at least since the incident in GSTL they are on to it once and for all.
On April 15 2012 15:00 _MagnuM_ wrote: I'm just thinking of everything this can be used for.. Imagine pros watching a replay after a loss and trying to figure out what they did wrong and see if they could change a few things.. Its like going back in time almost!!... Dude.. You have just invented a SC2 TIME MACHINE... and yeah thats what you should call it
That doesn't sound plausible. I haven't worked with SC2 at all, but extrapolating from SC1, this doesn't work. In SC even minimal disturbances broke anything that came after it. You can start playing at an arbitrary point in the replay, but you can't change a few details while keeping the rest of the replay intact.
that's not what he is saying. he is only talking about resuming games from a specific point in time, for practice, which is exactly what the program does.
On April 16 2012 02:31 Not_That wrote: Blizzard will sooner see people stop playing SC2 than implementing this functionality. It saddens me, but this is the way things are.
Hm, I think it's more that they don't think people might stop playing or more importantly buying hots because of this. Which is probably true, too..
On April 15 2012 15:00 _MagnuM_ wrote: I'm just thinking of everything this can be used for.. Imagine pros watching a replay after a loss and trying to figure out what they did wrong and see if they could change a few things.. Its like going back in time almost!!... Dude.. You have just invented a SC2 TIME MACHINE... and yeah thats what you should call it
That doesn't sound plausible. I haven't worked with SC2 at all, but extrapolating from SC1, this doesn't work. In SC even minimal disturbances broke anything that came after it. You can start playing at an arbitrary point in the replay, but you can't change a few details while keeping the rest of the replay intact.
He means loading up the replay with a friend and playing the game from a set time, to explore the possibilities. Or a match you just played with someone, you think, I would have won if I did X instead -- so you and your opponent can go back and try it.
I don't think anyone expects you do load up a MKP vs Parting replay, change how Parting plays, and have the replay somehow magically react like MKP would! Now THAT would be an impressive hack! Starcraft player's mind fully emulated! Maybe in 100 years, heh.
On April 15 2012 15:00 _MagnuM_ wrote: I'm just thinking of everything this can be used for.. Imagine pros watching a replay after a loss and trying to figure out what they did wrong and see if they could change a few things.. Its like going back in time almost!!... Dude.. You have just invented a SC2 TIME MACHINE... and yeah thats what you should call it
That doesn't sound plausible. I haven't worked with SC2 at all, but extrapolating from SC1, this doesn't work. In SC even minimal disturbances broke anything that came after it. You can start playing at an arbitrary point in the replay, but you can't change a few details while keeping the rest of the replay intact.
Thats not what he meant.
Example: I play a PvT game against my buddy, and decide, because I'm terrible, to attack with my Chargelot/Archon army into a choke. In 15 sec I lose all my units without killing of his army, and thus lose the game. What I could do, with this tool, is reload the replay up to the point before the game deciding battle, and play differently. For example I could decide to not engage or engage at a more opportune spot, and see how it plays out.
On April 16 2012 04:30 Alejandrisha wrote: i will soon use this to practice so much. thank you. you are a hero.
On a side not, since this program is clearly against the ToS, you can use the SALT custom maps and save at given timings. Much saver for your accounts health.
But great piece of work. I justh ope MLG/IPL/GSL pick up that something like this is arround and start to ask questions to blizzard.
On April 16 2012 04:30 Alejandrisha wrote: i will soon use this to practice so much. thank you. you are a hero.
On a side not, since this program is clearly against the ToS, you can use the SALT custom maps and save at given timings. Much saver for your accounts health.
But great piece of work. I justh ope MLG/IPL/GSL pick up that something like this is arround and start to ask questions to blizzard.
On April 15 2012 23:02 skeldark wrote: what a scam! Still NO super cow power...
On April 15 2012 22:25 Grovbolle wrote:
On April 15 2012 21:37 Jarvs wrote: Blizzard most likely won't support this and until their blessing has been given I do not see any tournaments taking this on board. It's a really well designed and well implemented system but it is a 3rd party program which most likely breaks the EULA and therefore is a bannable offense (assuming Blizzard care enough).
Still it is a great demonstration of "FUCK YOU BLIZZARD YOU SUCK FOR NOT SUPPORTING THIS", since a SuperCow could write this program which basically repairs the "No LAN" issue which cause questionable regames like for instance GSTL finals.
How exactly does this program fix the "No Lan" ? Still delay that make good micro impossible...
Of course it is not a perfect fix for No LAN, but it is a start, I hope you get my main point
I get it. Btw Sc2 lan servers already exist.
This, I've been trying to say this, but everywhere I post it, its shrugged off. Lan servers have existed for AT LEAST 4 months now, and are beginning to have enough functionality that they are being set up in ICCUP-like sites with launchers and ladders. While this is a beautiful piece of work that this guy has made, and will be a great help in regards to improving your play, and for tournaments where there are network issues. The whole fact that lan exists already is what should be getting pushed, not a workaround.
NOT AT ALL trying to downplay what this guy has done, I think it's excellent and have made use of it myself. Awesome stuff.
Yes it is well known that SC2 lan servers have existed for a very long time. However that is not very usefull since they are illigal. That means that no league or tournament can use them or they will be sued by blizzard. Because of this no players(pros) can train or play on these servers since the latency on lan servers are way better (I would asume) or anyway different. The difference to private lan servers and this hack however is a feasible solution for droping that blizzard could implement. They don't have to add lan and one of biggest problems (disconnects in game) is more or less fixed. Sure there are a lot of other problems without lan, but this is a step in the right direction.
On April 15 2012 23:23 skeldark wrote: think they will tolerate it. I dont think they will say this.
I saw plenty of people who used the disconnect cheat over 50 games in a row and never get banned. When they dont care for people, who obvious cheat they will not ban you for using such a tool.
Also i never heard about someone who got banned for using the" background switcher" or the "relocalisator". I used last one from beginning and never had a problem.
Ironically, this program by TheSuperCow only helps the experience of SC2. This is a "postive" tool for the SC2 community.
Most hacks are "negative" tools for the SC2 community - that includes cheats, map cheats, disconnect cheats, LAN emulator (well, Blizzard considers LAN emulator to be negative), etc.
I hope Blizzard looks the other way for this tool from TheSuperCow until they implement a way to continue a game from a disconnect. Until Blizzard add such a feature, I hope they are sensible enough to let the use of this tool slide.
I've asked the person I know at Blizzard to pass along the video of Eye on the community (thanks Mr. Bitter for uploading it to youtube ) and this thread to the SC2 team. (that'll happen in a hour of 6/7 as he's asleep now). The least this will do is make sure that Blizzard knows about it so we can have more clarity if they allow it or not etc etc.
On April 16 2012 18:57 Seiniyta wrote: I've asked the person I know at Blizzard to pass along the video of Eye on the community (thanks Mr. Bitter for uploading it to youtube ) and this thread to the SC2 team. (that'll happen in a hour of 6/7 as he's asleep now). The least this will do is make sure that Blizzard knows about it so we can have more clarity if they allow it or not etc etc.
Kudos to Mr. Bitter for mentioning on NASL! The link to the youtube video where he mentions TheSuperCow's program is:
if I'm not allowed to post this, someone please PM me or something and I'll edit it out, not sure on etiquette there
am i missing something or did you just post a link to a website, where you can download an illegal copy of sc2 and play on their hacked servers? do you think this is cool or what?
On April 16 2012 18:57 Seiniyta wrote: I've asked the person I know at Blizzard to pass along the video of Eye on the community (thanks Mr. Bitter for uploading it to youtube ) and this thread to the SC2 team. (that'll happen in a hour of 6/7 as he's asleep now). The least this will do is make sure that Blizzard knows about it so we can have more clarity if they allow it or not etc etc.
Kudos to Mr. Bitter for mentioning on NASL! The link to the youtube video where he mentions TheSuperCow's program is: + Show Spoiler +
does anyone realise how absurdly useful this tool can have for training and coaching purposes?
i cant count how many times ive been in situations with a practice partner where ive wanted to go back and replay the scenario, specifically an engagement. this is amazing o_o
On April 16 2012 20:57 SimDawg wrote: This is insane, let's be honest even if this is against the law it's going to see wide use, I don't think it will ever go away.
It's also ridiculous how amateur coders are doing these amazing things for esports that Blizzard can't or refuses to implement.
I think it is more of "havn't thought of" then anything else. But then again I don't know how hard this hack was to make. I have personaly always wondered why the tournaments didn't just make a custom map identical to the last second of a drop and let them play from there. This is basicly the same thing just way less work.
On April 16 2012 20:57 SimDawg wrote: This is insane, let's be honest even if this is against the law it's going to see wide use, I don't think it will ever go away.
It's also ridiculous how amateur coders are doing these amazing things for esports that Blizzard can't or refuses to implement.
I think it is more of "havn't thought of" then anything else. But then again I don't know how hard this hack was to make. I have personaly always wondered why the tournaments didn't just make a custom map identical to the last second of a drop and let them play from there. This is basicly the same thing just way less work.
If you mean the custom map has to save the game state every second to disk, that is not good because it would result in massive lag.
As for when the "lag" window comes up when a player is lagging, my hunch is that custom maps do not have control at that point. Of course, I'm not a custom map expert so maybe a custom map expert can answer this - why can't a custom map save the game when the "lag" window pops up and the countdown to disconnect progresses.
An idea: maybe this could be combined with a custom map A.I. You pause the A.I, at the beginning, launch a replay from a matching ladder match, and resume the A.I. when the replay ends, let's say in the middle of a huge fight. That way you could train and see what would have happened if you did something different during that fight ?
On April 16 2012 20:57 SimDawg wrote: This is insane, let's be honest even if this is against the law it's going to see wide use, I don't think it will ever go away.
It's also ridiculous how amateur coders are doing these amazing things for esports that Blizzard can't or refuses to implement.
I think it is more of "havn't thought of" then anything else. But then again I don't know how hard this hack was to make. I have personaly always wondered why the tournaments didn't just make a custom map identical to the last second of a drop and let them play from there. This is basicly the same thing just way less work.
If you mean the custom map has to save the game state every second to disk, that is not good because it would result in massive lag.
As for when the "lag" window comes up when a player is lagging, my hunch is that custom maps do not have control at that point. Of course, I'm not a custom map expert so maybe a custom map expert can answer this - why can't a custom map save the game when the "lag" window pops up and the countdown to disconnect progresses.
No that was not what I was thinking. I meant that if you drop on say Entombed Valley, you open the mad editor on Entombed Valley and add buildings units and remove minerals and gas as seen at the time of disconnect and then save the map and let the players play from there. It should not take that much time to set up for someone experienced (30min maybe?), since you really only have to add units and change gas and mineral patches.
On April 16 2012 20:57 SimDawg wrote: This is insane, let's be honest even if this is against the law it's going to see wide use, I don't think it will ever go away.
It's also ridiculous how amateur coders are doing these amazing things for esports that Blizzard can't or refuses to implement.
I think it is more of "havn't thought of" then anything else. But then again I don't know how hard this hack was to make. I have personaly always wondered why the tournaments didn't just make a custom map identical to the last second of a drop and let them play from there. This is basicly the same thing just way less work.
If you mean the custom map has to save the game state every second to disk, that is not good because it would result in massive lag.
As for when the "lag" window comes up when a player is lagging, my hunch is that custom maps do not have control at that point. Of course, I'm not a custom map expert so maybe a custom map expert can answer this - why can't a custom map save the game when the "lag" window pops up and the countdown to disconnect progresses.
No that was not what I was thinking. I meant that if you drop on say Entombed Valley, you open the mad editor on Entombed Valley and add buildings units and remove minerals and gas as seen at the time of disconnect and then save the map and let the players play from there. It should not take that much time to set up for someone experienced (30min maybe?), since you really only have to add units and change gas and mineral patches.
And set every unit's hitpoints and energy, position them correctly, figure out a way to give the players vision under FOW of things they'd seen up to that point, figure out what orders every unit was operating under... I think it would take significantly more than 30 minutes to precisely reproduce a scenario, and it would be incredibly difficult to get it right. Saving game state periodically or the solution in the OP are really the only two plausible ways to go about this.
If this gets made into a completely workable program (in its current state, as in, still against blizzard's ToC) then just email it to all the major starcraft tournaments, and get the community to encourage them to use it. If there happens to be a disconnect in MLG Spring Arena, and they use the program to continue the game, Blizzard will have no choice but accept it
On April 16 2012 22:04 shawty wrote: If this gets made into a completely workable program (in its current state, as in, still against blizzard's ToC) then just email it to all the major starcraft tournaments, and get the community to encourage them to use it. If there happens to be a disconnect in MLG Spring Arena, and they use the program to continue the game, Blizzard will have no choice but accept it
Beacuse Blizzard and MLG are definitely not business parnters. -_- Everyone needs to stop with the selfish, "well a tournament should just use it anyway, then it shows we're better and have to be catered to".
It's obviously understandable what we want, and things like this really get the community moving in the right direction, but that doesn't mean you should go against licensing terms or agreements. If you want tournaments at least.
Unfortunately, we really do just have to wait for it (if it ever comes that is q_q)
On April 16 2012 20:57 SimDawg wrote: This is insane, let's be honest even if this is against the law it's going to see wide use, I don't think it will ever go away.
It's also ridiculous how amateur coders are doing these amazing things for esports that Blizzard can't or refuses to implement.
I think it is more of "havn't thought of" then anything else. But then again I don't know how hard this hack was to make. I have personaly always wondered why the tournaments didn't just make a custom map identical to the last second of a drop and let them play from there. This is basicly the same thing just way less work.
If you mean the custom map has to save the game state every second to disk, that is not good because it would result in massive lag.
As for when the "lag" window comes up when a player is lagging, my hunch is that custom maps do not have control at that point. Of course, I'm not a custom map expert so maybe a custom map expert can answer this - why can't a custom map save the game when the "lag" window pops up and the countdown to disconnect progresses.
No that was not what I was thinking. I meant that if you drop on say Entombed Valley, you open the mad editor on Entombed Valley and add buildings units and remove minerals and gas as seen at the time of disconnect and then save the map and let the players play from there. It should not take that much time to set up for someone experienced (30min maybe?), since you really only have to add units and change gas and mineral patches.
And set every unit's hitpoints and energy, position them correctly, figure out a way to give the players vision under FOW of things they'd seen up to that point, figure out what orders every unit was operating under... I think it would take significantly more than 30 minutes to precisely reproduce a scenario, and it would be incredibly difficult to get it right. Saving game state periodically or the solution in the OP are really the only two plausible ways to go about this.
True that if you also need to set the units orders it will be hard. But setting the hp and energy as well as position is not that hard, honestly. The FOW might be a bit harder, but far from impossible. Honestly though, I havn't played around with the editor to much. But since you shouldn't need any complex triggers or anything like that (maybe apart from the FOW and uppgrades), it should be a easy task.
Edit: Okay honestly? What is the matter with this map editor. Why is it so hard to just change the HP of a unit? it is way more complicated then it is in the WC3 editor... I guess it could be just me who is really bad, but if you really have to make a trigger for every unit who to set hp and energy, I guess there is a reason to why noone does this.
On April 16 2012 20:57 SimDawg wrote: This is insane, let's be honest even if this is against the law it's going to see wide use, I don't think it will ever go away.
It's also ridiculous how amateur coders are doing these amazing things for esports that Blizzard can't or refuses to implement.
I think it is more of "havn't thought of" then anything else. But then again I don't know how hard this hack was to make. I have personaly always wondered why the tournaments didn't just make a custom map identical to the last second of a drop and let them play from there. This is basicly the same thing just way less work.
If you mean the custom map has to save the game state every second to disk, that is not good because it would result in massive lag.
As for when the "lag" window comes up when a player is lagging, my hunch is that custom maps do not have control at that point. Of course, I'm not a custom map expert so maybe a custom map expert can answer this - why can't a custom map save the game when the "lag" window pops up and the countdown to disconnect progresses.
No that was not what I was thinking. I meant that if you drop on say Entombed Valley, you open the mad editor on Entombed Valley and add buildings units and remove minerals and gas as seen at the time of disconnect and then save the map and let the players play from there. It should not take that much time to set up for someone experienced (30min maybe?), since you really only have to add units and change gas and mineral patches.
And set every unit's hitpoints and energy, position them correctly, figure out a way to give the players vision under FOW of things they'd seen up to that point, figure out what orders every unit was operating under... I think it would take significantly more than 30 minutes to precisely reproduce a scenario, and it would be incredibly difficult to get it right. Saving game state periodically or the solution in the OP are really the only two plausible ways to go about this.
True that if you also need to set the units orders it will be hard. But setting the hp and energy as well as position is not that hard, honestly. The FOW might be a bit harder, but far from impossible. Honestly though, I havn't played around with the editor to much. But since you shouldn't need any complex triggers or anything like that (maybe apart from the FOW and uppgrades), it should be a easy task.
So you are just guessing? Because it seems that way. I have not played around with the editor either, which is why I don't make assumptions about the time it takes to reproduce an entire game played including all the hp/energy on building and units, all resources mined, all buildings placed correctly, all control groups set, upgrades, orders giving at drop point and of course positioning of all units.
Edit: Okay now you have tried, so you get the point I hope :D
On April 16 2012 20:57 SimDawg wrote: This is insane, let's be honest even if this is against the law it's going to see wide use, I don't think it will ever go away.
It's also ridiculous how amateur coders are doing these amazing things for esports that Blizzard can't or refuses to implement.
I think it is more of "havn't thought of" then anything else. But then again I don't know how hard this hack was to make. I have personaly always wondered why the tournaments didn't just make a custom map identical to the last second of a drop and let them play from there. This is basicly the same thing just way less work.
If you mean the custom map has to save the game state every second to disk, that is not good because it would result in massive lag.
As for when the "lag" window comes up when a player is lagging, my hunch is that custom maps do not have control at that point. Of course, I'm not a custom map expert so maybe a custom map expert can answer this - why can't a custom map save the game when the "lag" window pops up and the countdown to disconnect progresses.
No that was not what I was thinking. I meant that if you drop on say Entombed Valley, you open the mad editor on Entombed Valley and add buildings units and remove minerals and gas as seen at the time of disconnect and then save the map and let the players play from there. It should not take that much time to set up for someone experienced (30min maybe?), since you really only have to add units and change gas and mineral patches.
And set every unit's hitpoints and energy, position them correctly, figure out a way to give the players vision under FOW of things they'd seen up to that point, figure out what orders every unit was operating under... I think it would take significantly more than 30 minutes to precisely reproduce a scenario, and it would be incredibly difficult to get it right. Saving game state periodically or the solution in the OP are really the only two plausible ways to go about this.
True that if you also need to set the units orders it will be hard. But setting the hp and energy as well as position is not that hard, honestly. The FOW might be a bit harder, but far from impossible. Honestly though, I havn't played around with the editor to much. But since you shouldn't need any complex triggers or anything like that (maybe apart from the FOW and uppgrades), it should be a easy task.
Edit: Okay honestly? What is the matter with this map editor. Why is it so hard to just change the HP of a unit? it is way more complicated then it is in the WC3 editor... I guess it could be just me who is really bad, but if you really have to make a trigger for every unit who to set hp and energy, I guess there is a reason to why noone does this.
God damn it.
Saving game states and being able to play over LAN was a feature in SC1 back in 1998. In fact, most games back then had those features. There is no reason whatsoever why this should not be easy to implement in SC2.
Blizzard does not want to implement it for whatever reasons, be it rational reasons or not, and that is it.
In my opinion it is as simple as this: both Blizzard and the community wants SC2 to grow as an e-sport with the first goal to overtake the role of SC:BW. The community and the company have different concerns, restrictions and priorities, but the two sides are not independent of each other. SC2 wouldn't be in the state it is in right now if it wasn't for community feedback. But all feedback is not of the good kind. For the sake of getting SC2 to reach its full potential Blizzard owes itself and the community to not make any rushed decisions based on biased feedback (whine) from the community. The community had better make balanced and well grounded demands to the company as the opposite would not help us towards reaching the ultimate goal. This is a case where the community is too nice towards Blizzard, LAN support and being able to restore game states is a very important feature to have in a game with the ambition to become a legitimate "sport", an E-sport.
The lack of the features mentioned above has already affected the outcome of a big final. It hurts as a terran player to admit it, but even though MKP was playing an almost completely flawless game vs arguably the best PvT player in the world, he was going to loose the game if the disconnect didn't happened. The terran player doesn't have the luxury of letting off the pressure in that situation. You can think whatever you want about how fair that is, but it is an obvious fact given how strong the protoss army gets if you don't keep decimating it. As it has been stated many times: the terran can't loose a big battle in the lategame because of the instant reinforcement capabilities of the protoss race. MKP would not have won that game if it had continued. I can only imagine that the game was replayed because of fairness concerns. MKP was outplaying his opponent hard during the large part of the game, but still wasn't winning. The protoss player only had the big advantage mentioned above during a period of a few minutes tops. I think the call to give the win to the protoss was a bit too hard to make for the referees.
The community should not stop with these demands. We have to be very clear about the importance of LAN and saved games. In the short run it might seem unnecessary to implement this from Blizzards perspective. But I am convinced that in the long run these features are absolutely needed for SC2 to really take off as a serious e-sport. Calling out Blizzard employees by shouting "we want LAN" is good. Self moderation in forums like these is bad. Every time LAN support is demanded there is a mod closing down the thread with the motivation: "don't beat a dead horse". There is no horse! During countless live events I have seen casters trying to "hide" or not make any comments about these issues. I specifically remember an MLG tournament where there was HUGE lag issues in a lot of the games. I don't know, but it seems as if casters are instructed to not mention anything about this. I appreciate that it is hard, but if you are casting with Rob Simpson, who is a Blizzard employee, and there is an issue caused by his company's unwillingness to implement basic network functionality his co-caster should call him out on this. I have witnessed many awkward situations with Rob Simpson where it is very clear that his co-caster wants to complain to him about it, but chooses not to. I am 100% sure that every caster out there who has played the game on pro-level is of the absolute opinion that LAN-support is needed, so why not stand up for this.
The mentality that you should not whine about imbalance when you loose, but instead focus on your own mistakes is very good. This mentality should not necessarily be used universally. LAN-support will be good for SC2 as an e-sport. There might be issues with implementing it, but from a perspective where the economical side of things is not important it is universally true that LAN and saved games will be good for the e-sport SC2.
So stop being so politically correct.
We want LAN and the ability to save games. We are the consumers, we pay for the game with the money spent on licences and indirectly with the time we dedicate playing the game and watching tournaments. It is our responsibility as a community to make sure that we get what we want. So make yourself heard.
Don't get into the "don't beat a dead horse" mentality!
On April 16 2012 20:57 SimDawg wrote: This is insane, let's be honest even if this is against the law it's going to see wide use, I don't think it will ever go away.
It's also ridiculous how amateur coders are doing these amazing things for esports that Blizzard can't or refuses to implement.
I think it is more of "havn't thought of" then anything else. But then again I don't know how hard this hack was to make. I have personaly always wondered why the tournaments didn't just make a custom map identical to the last second of a drop and let them play from there. This is basicly the same thing just way less work.
If you mean the custom map has to save the game state every second to disk, that is not good because it would result in massive lag.
As for when the "lag" window comes up when a player is lagging, my hunch is that custom maps do not have control at that point. Of course, I'm not a custom map expert so maybe a custom map expert can answer this - why can't a custom map save the game when the "lag" window pops up and the countdown to disconnect progresses.
No that was not what I was thinking. I meant that if you drop on say Entombed Valley, you open the mad editor on Entombed Valley and add buildings units and remove minerals and gas as seen at the time of disconnect and then save the map and let the players play from there. It should not take that much time to set up for someone experienced (30min maybe?), since you really only have to add units and change gas and mineral patches.
And set every unit's hitpoints and energy, position them correctly, figure out a way to give the players vision under FOW of things they'd seen up to that point, figure out what orders every unit was operating under... I think it would take significantly more than 30 minutes to precisely reproduce a scenario, and it would be incredibly difficult to get it right. Saving game state periodically or the solution in the OP are really the only two plausible ways to go about this.
True that if you also need to set the units orders it will be hard. But setting the hp and energy as well as position is not that hard, honestly. The FOW might be a bit harder, but far from impossible. Honestly though, I havn't played around with the editor to much. But since you shouldn't need any complex triggers or anything like that (maybe apart from the FOW and uppgrades), it should be a easy task.
So you are just guessing? Because it seems that way. I have not played around with the editor either, which is why I don't make assumptions about the time it takes to reproduce an entire game played including all the hp/energy on building and units, all resources mined, all buildings placed correctly, all control groups set, upgrades, orders giving at drop point and of course positioning of all units.
Edit: Okay now you have tried, so you get the point I hope :D
Well it was an educated guess from my experience with the WC3 editor but yeah. I still think that someone experienced COULD remake the scenario in a fairly short time. Sure maybe 30min is a bit on the low end but wouldn't it be owrth it for a fair game? That said, ofcourse something like this is way better and I hope that blizzard implement something similar. But I just want to say that the possibility have been there for a long time. And now when I have played a round a bit more I am sure that you can do it relativly quick, if you know what you are doing. Why is there no easy way to set hp and energy...
Edit: I would like to add that while saving games is great, I don't think that is the most important or the best way to fix the problem. Because the game does not auto save every second right? certainly didn't in BW but you had to save manually, and it interuppted your game flow. So to fix the problem arising from disconnects. I think restarting a game from replay is the way to go.
On April 16 2012 20:57 SimDawg wrote: This is insane, let's be honest even if this is against the law it's going to see wide use, I don't think it will ever go away.
It's also ridiculous how amateur coders are doing these amazing things for esports that Blizzard can't or refuses to implement.
I think it is more of "havn't thought of" then anything else. But then again I don't know how hard this hack was to make. I have personaly always wondered why the tournaments didn't just make a custom map identical to the last second of a drop and let them play from there. This is basicly the same thing just way less work.
If you mean the custom map has to save the game state every second to disk, that is not good because it would result in massive lag.
As for when the "lag" window comes up when a player is lagging, my hunch is that custom maps do not have control at that point. Of course, I'm not a custom map expert so maybe a custom map expert can answer this - why can't a custom map save the game when the "lag" window pops up and the countdown to disconnect progresses.
No that was not what I was thinking. I meant that if you drop on say Entombed Valley, you open the mad editor on Entombed Valley and add buildings units and remove minerals and gas as seen at the time of disconnect and then save the map and let the players play from there. It should not take that much time to set up for someone experienced (30min maybe?), since you really only have to add units and change gas and mineral patches.
And set every unit's hitpoints and energy, position them correctly, figure out a way to give the players vision under FOW of things they'd seen up to that point, figure out what orders every unit was operating under... I think it would take significantly more than 30 minutes to precisely reproduce a scenario, and it would be incredibly difficult to get it right. Saving game state periodically or the solution in the OP are really the only two plausible ways to go about this.
True that if you also need to set the units orders it will be hard. But setting the hp and energy as well as position is not that hard, honestly. The FOW might be a bit harder, but far from impossible. Honestly though, I havn't played around with the editor to much. But since you shouldn't need any complex triggers or anything like that (maybe apart from the FOW and uppgrades), it should be a easy task.
So you are just guessing? Because it seems that way. I have not played around with the editor either, which is why I don't make assumptions about the time it takes to reproduce an entire game played including all the hp/energy on building and units, all resources mined, all buildings placed correctly, all control groups set, upgrades, orders giving at drop point and of course positioning of all units.
Edit: Okay now you have tried, so you get the point I hope :D
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=297534 allready done... The problem is not the task to save everything, this is very easy and can be done in 1 day. The problem is to find workaround for the retarded editor functions. That are half missing, half act wrong. To implement a save function if you have full file access and the real unit functions is for a good programmer work for 2h-8h. If you work at blizzard and have to write full documentation + present it on meetings + talk to other department to make sure everything work together 1-2 weeks for 1 person.
to give you an example: This is a valid code i use at the moment to save an object that is way more complicated than a sc2 unit to a database. With all his "life / energy / buff / debuffs / position ...."
SALT I don't believe works between games. It simply saves out all the information of the state of the game to a bank file and then reloads it, I believe. It's not the same as figuring it all out.
On April 17 2012 00:47 Gowerly wrote: SALT I don't believe works between games. It simply saves out all the information of the state of the game to a bank file and then reloads it, I believe. It's not the same as figuring it all out.
i does not work between games because it cant save to bank-files because of blizzard max-bank-file-size.
You know how hard it is to find out at what % a morphing orbital command is? There is no trigger for it because blizzard forgot it...
The salt code get all the information you talk about out of the actual game. A ton of code... But all this, is only hard because its a MAPEDITOR.
Blizzard can take the data from the real dataobjects. And to get such data from objects is no work at all. They are made to get this data out easy.
All the "technology talk" they did was just a bad joke because they said things are impossible that million of people do every day. Blizzard dont want to add functions and this have nothing to do with the technology or that this is much work. I dont talk about easy for a genius, i talk about any computer since student can do so... (or should be able)
As programmer i can only see one single reason why there is no "save for multiplayer" in sc2: They don't want to have it. Why? I don't know.
This guy here wrote a hack to do it. In codeing this is 1000 times harder than to do it if you have the sourcecode of sc2 and work with it every day. Its not hard to CODE such stuff, its hard to do so in a big company because you must talk to 20 departments and hold 20 meetings for every line of code you write. Every company try to hold this in a balance. My guess, (and only a guess ) is that this is totaly out of balance by blizzard. So much that the coders are afraid of adding functions because they know they have to work 8h day for the next few month only to document and defend their code they did in 1 day. Instead they just say "nah thats not possible" to dustin and he is silly enough to believe this and repeat it in public,
On April 13 2012 14:14 Severian wrote: Pfft. In the time it took you to write that program, Blizzard could have easily made chat windows resizable in both the x and y dimensions.
I don't know if there should be a pause at the start or something in case players joined in the wrong slots... They might see something they shouldn't :o
I guess I could also make it so AI players could take over for players, as this will not work right now.
On April 17 2012 02:29 TheSuperCow wrote: So I fixed the join order thing & updated OP.
I don't know if there should be a pause at the start or something in case players joined in the wrong slots... They might see something they shouldn't :o
I guess I could also make it so AI players could take over for players, as this will not work right now.
You should add that pause thing if your goal is to provide a usable program for fixing tournament issues.
Alright, the video and this thread have been passed along at Blizzard. I can't guarentee something will come from this but at least they can't say they weren't aware of it.
So you on your spare time wrote a program that Blizzard wouldn't do with their legions of programmers.
This goes on to show just how fucked up the industry is. They do not care about the community, they don't care about the game, they just want to milk every fucking penny they can from your account.
People might get sick of their BS and just play hacked version of StarCraft at some point.
On April 17 2012 02:52 davidc02 wrote: So you on your spare time wrote a program that Blizzard wouldn't do with their legions of programmers.
This goes on to show just how fucked up the industry is. They do not care about the community, they don't care about the game, they just want to milk every fucking penny they can from your account.
People might get sick of their BS and just play hacked version of StarCraft at some point.
Every other day there seems to be another great post on TL about how Blizzard could PISS easily improve SC2... It makes me so sad and annoyed that they don't pull their fucking (excuse my language...) finger out.
On April 17 2012 02:52 davidc02 wrote: So you on your spare time wrote a program that Blizzard wouldn't do with their legions of programmers.
This goes on to show just how fucked up the industry is. They do not care about the community, they don't care about the game, they just want to milk every fucking penny they can from your account.
People might get sick of their BS and just play hacked version of StarCraft at some point.
Not to mention that is was not as easy as it would have been for blizzard. I mean this kind of injection, is really hard and a fair amount of reverse engineering had to be done to do that.
In the end, I agree, Blizzard showed us how noob they are at coding their own game. Wood League of programmer!
On April 17 2012 02:52 davidc02 wrote: So you on your spare time wrote a program that Blizzard wouldn't do with their legions of programmers.
This goes on to show just how fucked up the industry is. They do not care about the community, they don't care about the game, they just want to milk every fucking penny they can from your account.
People might get sick of their BS and just play hacked version of StarCraft at some point.
Nah, not money....bureaucracy. A company the size of Blizzard has legions of folks whose entire job is to erect barriers. That is what makes a bureaucracy a bureaucracy. It lives for the sake of itself. As the other poster stated, and as Office Space provided its laughs, you really going to put in all the work when you have to go through ten or fifteen different people and departments who are thoroughly detached from what you do? Good luck with that.
It's like if you had to spend 80 hours working on something and then you had to go to the DMV and have them check off on something they've never seen, nor given permission to. Up on the line it goes. Maybe you'll hear something in a few weeks, but more than likely months and the most common answer is no. Believe me, I know, I've worked in one of the planets largest bureaucracies before -- the US Armed Service. It's a CHARLIE FOXTROT. This is why large companies feed off the Government's monopoly on violence and the initation of force. Without it many of these behemoths would be eaten alive by leaner meaner competition. They're inefficient monstrosities.
On April 16 2012 20:57 SimDawg wrote: This is insane, let's be honest even if this is against the law it's going to see wide use, I don't think it will ever go away.
It's also ridiculous how amateur coders are doing these amazing things for esports that Blizzard can't or refuses to implement.
I think it is more of "havn't thought of" then anything else. But then again I don't know how hard this hack was to make. I have personaly always wondered why the tournaments didn't just make a custom map identical to the last second of a drop and let them play from there. This is basicly the same thing just way less work.
If you mean the custom map has to save the game state every second to disk, that is not good because it would result in massive lag.
As for when the "lag" window comes up when a player is lagging, my hunch is that custom maps do not have control at that point. Of course, I'm not a custom map expert so maybe a custom map expert can answer this - why can't a custom map save the game when the "lag" window pops up and the countdown to disconnect progresses.
No that was not what I was thinking. I meant that if you drop on say Entombed Valley, you open the mad editor on Entombed Valley and add buildings units and remove minerals and gas as seen at the time of disconnect and then save the map and let the players play from there. It should not take that much time to set up for someone experienced (30min maybe?), since you really only have to add units and change gas and mineral patches.
And set every unit's hitpoints and energy, position them correctly, figure out a way to give the players vision under FOW of things they'd seen up to that point, figure out what orders every unit was operating under... I think it would take significantly more than 30 minutes to precisely reproduce a scenario, and it would be incredibly difficult to get it right. Saving game state periodically or the solution in the OP are really the only two plausible ways to go about this.
True that if you also need to set the units orders it will be hard. But setting the hp and energy as well as position is not that hard, honestly. The FOW might be a bit harder, but far from impossible. Honestly though, I havn't played around with the editor to much. But since you shouldn't need any complex triggers or anything like that (maybe apart from the FOW and uppgrades), it should be a easy task.
Edit: Okay honestly? What is the matter with this map editor. Why is it so hard to just change the HP of a unit? it is way more complicated then it is in the WC3 editor... I guess it could be just me who is really bad, but if you really have to make a trigger for every unit who to set hp and energy, I guess there is a reason to why noone does this.
God damn it.
Saving game states and being able to play over LAN was a feature in SC1 back in 1998. In fact, most games back then had those features. There is no reason whatsoever why this should not be easy to implement in SC2.
Blizzard does not want to implement it for whatever reasons, be it rational reasons or not, and that is it.
In my opinion it is as simple as this: both Blizzard and the community wants SC2 to grow as an e-sport with the first goal to overtake the role of SC:BW. The community and the company have different concerns, restrictions and priorities, but the two sides are not independent of each other. SC2 wouldn't be in the state it is in right now if it wasn't for community feedback. But all feedback is not of the good kind. For the sake of getting SC2 to reach its full potential Blizzard owes itself and the community to not make any rushed decisions based on biased feedback (whine) from the community. The community had better make balanced and well grounded demands to the company as the opposite would not help us towards reaching the ultimate goal. This is a case where the community is too nice towards Blizzard, LAN support and being able to restore game states is a very important feature to have in a game with the ambition to become a legitimate "sport", an E-sport.
The lack of the features mentioned above has already affected the outcome of a big final. It hurts as a terran player to admit it, but even though MKP was playing an almost completely flawless game vs arguably the best PvT player in the world, he was going to loose the game if the disconnect didn't happened. The terran player doesn't have the luxury of letting off the pressure in that situation. You can think whatever you want about how fair that is, but it is an obvious fact given how strong the protoss army gets if you don't keep decimating it. As it has been stated many times: the terran can't loose a big battle in the lategame because of the instant reinforcement capabilities of the protoss race. MKP would not have won that game if it had continued.
Stopped reading there.
Tbh, I don't think Blizzard will ever allow LAN. Doing that would take away the ability to shut down any game at any time from Blizzard, which is a leverage against wayward headstrong organizations like KeSPA.
It would so awesome for training purposes to redo certain scenarios again and again. This HAS to be implemented in Sc2 just like shared replays with friends...Just imagine you find a spot in a rep whre you want to try something else and you and your friend just jump right into the action.
On April 14 2012 00:44 Excalibur_Z wrote: Is this the same SuperCow who created the very first replay analyzer/map extractor from BW? If so then I can't say I'm surprised at the degree of contribution.
There's a significant risk of being flagged by Warden for this though, since it involves memory injections. I'm sure Blizzard will look into this one way or the other though. Thanks for the post!
Is it SuperCow ? Well, Blizzard should implement it, in War3 it worked, why wouldn't work in SC2. I hope we can use it, would be awesome for massive lans or any live tournament.
On April 14 2012 00:44 Excalibur_Z wrote: Is this the same SuperCow who created the very first replay analyzer/map extractor from BW? If so then I can't say I'm surprised at the degree of contribution.
There's a significant risk of being flagged by Warden for this though, since it involves memory injections. I'm sure Blizzard will look into this one way or the other though. Thanks for the post!
Is it SuperCow ? Well, Blizzard should implement it, in War3 it worked, why wouldn't work in SC2. I hope we can use it, would be awesome for massive lans or any live tournament.
On April 16 2012 20:57 SimDawg wrote: This is insane, let's be honest even if this is against the law it's going to see wide use, I don't think it will ever go away.
It's also ridiculous how amateur coders are doing these amazing things for esports that Blizzard can't or refuses to implement.
I think it is more of "havn't thought of" then anything else. But then again I don't know how hard this hack was to make. I have personaly always wondered why the tournaments didn't just make a custom map identical to the last second of a drop and let them play from there. This is basicly the same thing just way less work.
If you mean the custom map has to save the game state every second to disk, that is not good because it would result in massive lag.
As for when the "lag" window comes up when a player is lagging, my hunch is that custom maps do not have control at that point. Of course, I'm not a custom map expert so maybe a custom map expert can answer this - why can't a custom map save the game when the "lag" window pops up and the countdown to disconnect progresses.
No that was not what I was thinking. I meant that if you drop on say Entombed Valley, you open the mad editor on Entombed Valley and add buildings units and remove minerals and gas as seen at the time of disconnect and then save the map and let the players play from there. It should not take that much time to set up for someone experienced (30min maybe?), since you really only have to add units and change gas and mineral patches.
And set every unit's hitpoints and energy, position them correctly, figure out a way to give the players vision under FOW of things they'd seen up to that point, figure out what orders every unit was operating under... I think it would take significantly more than 30 minutes to precisely reproduce a scenario, and it would be incredibly difficult to get it right. Saving game state periodically or the solution in the OP are really the only two plausible ways to go about this.
True that if you also need to set the units orders it will be hard. But setting the hp and energy as well as position is not that hard, honestly. The FOW might be a bit harder, but far from impossible. Honestly though, I havn't played around with the editor to much. But since you shouldn't need any complex triggers or anything like that (maybe apart from the FOW and uppgrades), it should be a easy task.
Edit: Okay honestly? What is the matter with this map editor. Why is it so hard to just change the HP of a unit? it is way more complicated then it is in the WC3 editor... I guess it could be just me who is really bad, but if you really have to make a trigger for every unit who to set hp and energy, I guess there is a reason to why noone does this.
God damn it.
Saving game states and being able to play over LAN was a feature in SC1 back in 1998. In fact, most games back then had those features. There is no reason whatsoever why this should not be easy to implement in SC2.
Blizzard does not want to implement it for whatever reasons, be it rational reasons or not, and that is it.
In my opinion it is as simple as this: both Blizzard and the community wants SC2 to grow as an e-sport with the first goal to overtake the role of SC:BW. The community and the company have different concerns, restrictions and priorities, but the two sides are not independent of each other. SC2 wouldn't be in the state it is in right now if it wasn't for community feedback. But all feedback is not of the good kind. For the sake of getting SC2 to reach its full potential Blizzard owes itself and the community to not make any rushed decisions based on biased feedback (whine) from the community. The community had better make balanced and well grounded demands to the company as the opposite would not help us towards reaching the ultimate goal. This is a case where the community is too nice towards Blizzard, LAN support and being able to restore game states is a very important feature to have in a game with the ambition to become a legitimate "sport", an E-sport.
The lack of the features mentioned above has already affected the outcome of a big final. It hurts as a terran player to admit it, but even though MKP was playing an almost completely flawless game vs arguably the best PvT player in the world, he was going to loose the game if the disconnect didn't happened. The terran player doesn't have the luxury of letting off the pressure in that situation. You can think whatever you want about how fair that is, but it is an obvious fact given how strong the protoss army gets if you don't keep decimating it. As it has been stated many times: the terran can't loose a big battle in the lategame because of the instant reinforcement capabilities of the protoss race. MKP would not have won that game if it had continued.
Stopped reading there.
Tbh, I don't think Blizzard will ever allow LAN. Doing that would take away the ability to shut down any game at any time from Blizzard, which is a leverage against wayward headstrong organizations like KeSPA.
What?
MKP's face after winning the regame says everything. Also, the commentators were baffled by the decision to replay the game. The whole ST team were outraged by the decision.
Great work! Hopefully this also pressures Blizzard even more to implement a feature like this one into the game officially.. They do a lot for the game, but honestly, stuff like this should've been in there from the start, or otherwise since the first patch. It's so bad to not have a feature like this one in a game that does not support LAN. Once more though, great job TheSuperCow!<3
On April 17 2012 02:29 TheSuperCow wrote: So I fixed the join order thing & updated OP.
I don't know if there should be a pause at the start or something in case players joined in the wrong slots... They might see something they shouldn't :o
I guess I could also make it so AI players could take over for players, as this will not work right now.
You should add that pause thing if your goal is to provide a usable program for fixing tournament issues.
Thank you btw, good thing you are doing here.
The contingency usecase for a tournament using this tool in the event of a disconnect would be the following:
Upon disconnect, record the game time of the disconnect, agree on a resume time, and inform the involved players/teams and third parties.
Take the game off the stream and have casters keep the audience entertained or roll some commercials/overlays.
Check/review the replays on the various client computers for corruption, then pick and salvage the best copy to distribute later.
Resolve internet and/or computer problems that led to the disconnect.
Distribute the chosen replay copy to the client computers of the players and casters.
Start up the SC2 clients and this resume tool on all the involved client computers.
Have all parties pick the distributed replay copy, set the agreed time to resume from, and press the inject button of this tool.
Create a new custom game the same way you did the game that the disconnect happened in (same host, players and casters in their previous slots, possibly go by a screenshot made earlier).
Start the new custom game and let all involved SC2 clients fast forward to the agreed time shortly before the disconnect.
When all SC2 clients have reached the agreed time, they should be in pause mode.
Upon countdown, unpause the game and put it back on stream, continue the cast.
When the game has concluded in an orderly fashion, re-start all SC2 clients and quit the resume tool on all client computers to leave contingency mode and operate normal again.
So a pause at the start before the fast forward isn't necessary I think as this can be done by an admin without the respective player present at that time. AI support would also just be a gimmick, and not used in a tournament setting.
Whoa. Apparently I'm late to the party. Where does this exist?
------
if I'm not allowed to post this, someone please PM me or something and I'll edit it out, not sure on etiquette there
User was warned for this post
Why is the site not allowed to be posted? It wasn't that long ago when there was an iCCup link on the sidebar of TL.
times have changed, this website is now a much more serious playing in all the competitive scene, plus blizzard are now attempting to provide services previously only supplied by 'pirate' servers.
sc2 pirate servers are just for people who don't want to pay for the game as far as i know. i can't fathom any other reason people would use them. But then i may be wrong about that.
Most of all, if we want blizzard to take this site seriously (eg this thread!) we can't be undermining them.
On April 17 2012 05:01 kerpal wrote: sc2 pirate servers are just for people who don't want to pay for the game as far as i know. i can't fathom any other reason people would use them. But then i may be wrong about that.
Lan.
But I digress, this is pretty impressive that one guy managed to do this on his own, and it's rather clever too. As everyone else has said, hopefully this gets implemented in some way shape or form (or the "hack" is approved by blizzard)
as an aside: would the same method be possible for brood war dropped games?
So it would defiantly be against Blizzards terms of use to use the program. But if tournaments would use and they did not show the 3rd party program at work... Let's say someone disconnects, stream director switches the stream video to the casters, casters don't mention anything about the 3rd party program in use. Then when the game resumes from the point of disconnect stream director switches to the ingame footage 3-5 sec after the disconnect point. Well basically however the stream director seems it fit... bla bla.
My point is, if the 3rd party program is not shown on stream "at work" nor being talked about, how much would it hurt Blizzard???
Edit** Ofc major tournaments would never use it without Blizzards permission, that's a given. **Edit
The thing is that it will be pretty obvious to anyone watching the stream that a disconnect occured and a player was dropped from the game. It also takes a certain amount of time to set up the resume scenario on all client machines.
The fact that news travels fast on the interwebs notwithstanding, Blizzard people watching the stream aren't dumb.
And by the way, if you haven't studied the source code yet you might not realize this:
This tool in its present form will only work with the current build version of the game. There are quite a number of hardcoded memory addresses/offsets in the source code to interact with the SC2 client in-memory. So as soon as a patch or hotfix comes out, all of these need to be redone and the tool be recompiled and tested. That's quite some overhead and the question is whether the author (who currently seems to be the only one with the necessary reverse engineered knowledge) will put in the time to do this ongoing task.
On April 17 2012 05:08 Shinobi1982 wrote: So it would defiantly be against Blizzards terms of use to use the program. But if tournaments would use and they did not show the 3rd party program at work... Let's say someone disconnects, stream director switches the stream video to the casters, casters don't mention anything about the 3rd party program in use. Then when the game resumes from the point of disconnect stream director switches to the ingame footage 3-5 sec after the disconnect point. Well basically however the stream director seems it fit... bla bla.
My point is, if the 3rd party program is not shown on stream "at work" nor being talked about, how much would it hurt Blizzard???
in no way does it hurt blizzard, but the danger is that accounts will be banned for hacking and tournaments will lose licences.. i think that the most likely scenario is a quiet few emails are exchanged and the tournaments quietly start using it and blizzard turns a blind eye.
What ever happened with the 'stronger colours' mod? They claimed that blizzard supported that.
half-way down someone has summarized. It could be that they'll support this too, although it might be hard for them to set it as an exemption from the warden thing.
I definitely didn't read through this entire thread, but I just wanted to say that this doesn't seem to cause the same problems LAN would, when it comes to Blizzard controlling their product. It would be great if this was allowed for tournaments, because we could really use a feature like this. Not only does this protect from internet disconnections, but it also protects against computer crashes. On top of that, Blizzard would still have control of the game, as people would be rejoining on battle.net.
Such a shame we don't have this already. I would have loved to see what would have happened in the ST vs Prime finals.
Blizzard not having this doesn't mean they don't want it. I don't know how people are getting the idea that anything not in SC2 right now is something that Blizzard is against. Any engineer of any sort, especially software, know that features and functionality are always done in terms of priority. Some stuff might get left out because you can only work on so many things at once and you have to release the product at some point. Do you guys think Blizzard would be opposed to something that turns replays into .mkv files? Is it something they are morally against creating? Probably not. But it doesn't mean they are going to put it in the game. Its not a top priority. There have been a lot of cases where Blizzard isn't quite in the loop and they probably didn't think replay resuming was gonna be a big deal.
After this program getting so much attention, I do certainly believe something of this nature will be used in the case of a disconnect in a big match.
You shouldn't be allowed to post here if you don't have a Bachelor's in CS. Normally I'd say common sense would work but it seems "reading the source code or don't post idiotic comments like: 'hur hur hur first post this is spam/fishy hur hur hur' " is too difficult to some people.
Remember Blizzard needs us, we don't need them. Is it me or are most people completely oblivious to the leverage at hand? Blizzard risks alienating a large percentage of their clientale if they went and banned tournaments and large swaths of their playerbase. They still have two more expansions they want to sell, and they still have a reputation to uphold. Sure, they can make the suicidal decision, and if they are that dumb then they get their just deserts and we have the truth about the quality of the company. Win/win in either case.
On April 17 2012 07:48 Wegandi wrote: Remember Blizzard needs us, we don't need them. Is it me or are most people completely oblivious to the leverage at hand? Blizzard risks alienating a large percentage of their clientale if they went and banned tournaments and large swaths of their playerbase. They still have two more expansions they want to sell, and they still have a reputation to uphold. Sure, they can make the suicidal decision, and if they are that dumb then they get their just deserts and we have the truth about the quality of the company. Win/win in either case.
I hope you don't provide your poor threatening reasoning with your future kids. I would feel very bad if someone had the misfortune of being your child.
We need to make this happen. Blizzard please listen to us and put this in game. Doesn't only solve lan, but can be used for practice. Imagine if you could pick up a game with a buddy right before a big engagement or a huge blunder and see if you could have handled the situation better. This could raise the level of play dramatically and removes all problems with the lack of lan.
On April 17 2012 07:48 Wegandi wrote: Remember Blizzard needs us, we don't need them. Is it me or are most people completely oblivious to the leverage at hand? Blizzard risks alienating a large percentage of their clientale if they went and banned tournaments and large swaths of their playerbase. They still have two more expansions they want to sell, and they still have a reputation to uphold. Sure, they can make the suicidal decision, and if they are that dumb then they get their just deserts and we have the truth about the quality of the company. Win/win in either case.
They don't need us. We are nice to have. The worst to happen would be a week-long uproar on Reddit. They are financially well on the safe side with Diablo 3 alone. In regards to HotS and ItV, it really depends on their marketing strategy. They could appeal to the base customer. On the other hand, gamers come and go, every year a new generation grows into it.
On April 17 2012 02:29 TheSuperCow wrote: So I fixed the join order thing & updated OP.
I don't know if there should be a pause at the start or something in case players joined in the wrong slots... They might see something they shouldn't :o
I guess I could also make it so AI players could take over for players, as this will not work right now.
You should add that pause thing if your goal is to provide a usable program for fixing tournament issues.
Thank you btw, good thing you are doing here.
The contingency usecase for a tournament using this tool in the event of a disconnect would be the following:
Upon disconnect, record the game time of the disconnect, agree on a resume time, and inform the involved players/teams and third parties.
Take the game off the stream and have casters keep the audience entertained or roll some commercials/overlays.
Check/review the replays on the various client computers for corruption, then pick and salvage the best copy to distribute later.
Resolve internet and/or computer problems that led to the disconnect.
Distribute the chosen replay copy to the client computers of the players and casters.
Start up the SC2 clients and this resume tool on all the involved client computers.
Have all parties pick the distributed replay copy, set the agreed time to resume from, and press the inject button of this tool.
Create a new custom game the same way you did the game that the disconnect happened in (same host, players and casters in their previous slots, possibly go by a screenshot made earlier).
Start the new custom game and let all involved SC2 clients fast forward to the agreed time shortly before the disconnect.
When all SC2 clients have reached the agreed time, they should be in pause mode.
Upon countdown, unpause the game and put it back on stream, continue the cast.
When the game has concluded in an orderly fashion, re-start all SC2 clients and quit the resume tool on all client computers to leave contingency mode and operate normal again.
So a pause at the start before the fast forward isn't necessary I think as this can be done by an admin without the respective player present at that time. AI support would also just be a gimmick, and not used in a tournament setting.
I suppose when a disconnect happens, no replay is saved for the player who disconnected. This would indeed make it necessary to transfer the replay file between computers. It might be the best idea to ensure everything works anyhow.
Regarding the player slots: Starcraft 2 does not actually use player slots, it merely uses teams, and the order players appear in teams is the order they joined in; it is not possible to reorder players in the same team. This is okay for 1v1's, but it might be cumbersome to get the players into the right slots for 2v2's and so on. Observers do not actually affect the game, so it does not matter what order they are in, or if there are more or less present than in the original game.
But yes, this usage would work.
Note that I have not actually tested this application (and especially the latest version) with more than two players, much less observers (although they should make no difference), so if someone could, I would much appreciate it.
Insert witty comment that I can't come up with by myself here. Couldn't think of anything else to say. This is like meeting the most beautiful girl I've ever seen. Except... better.
half-way down someone has summarized. It could be that they'll support this too, although it might be hard for them to set it as an exemption from the warden thing.
Dustin Bowder just said "we support IT" in the video. "IT" doesn't necessarily mean the mod or hack. I take it as Dustin Bowder is saying they support the idea of adding a feature for stronger colors in the SC2 client but not that they support a mod. Blizzard cannot endorse mods, even if the mods are not harmful to Blizzard or the SC2 community. I guarantee you that if one of the big tournaments like IPL or MLG ran this color mod, they would hear from Blizzard.
While Blizzard cannot endorse any mods, Blizzard can turn a blind eye to certain mods. IMO, the color mod and this resume game mod may qualify as mods that Blizzard can turn a blind eye to because it does no harm to Blizzard and the SC2 community endorses it. However, Blizzard would only turn a blind eye to these mods for individual use or small tourney use - Blizzard would most certainly disallow it at large tournaments.
half-way down someone has summarized. It could be that they'll support this too, although it might be hard for them to set it as an exemption from the warden thing.
Dustin Bowder just said "we support IT" in the video. "IT" doesn't necessarily mean the mod or hack. I take it as Dustin Bowder is saying they support the idea of adding a feature for stronger colors in the SC2 client but not that they support a mod. Blizzard cannot endorse mods, even if the mods are not harmful to Blizzard or the SC2 community. I guarantee you that if one of the big tournaments like IPL or MLG ran this color mod, they would hear from Blizzard.
While Blizzard cannot endorse any mods, Blizzard can turn a blind eye to certain mods. IMO, the color mod and this resume game mod may qualify as mods that Blizzard can turn a blind eye to because it does no harm to Blizzard and the SC2 community endorses it. However, Blizzard would only turn a blind eye to these mods for individual use or small tourney use - Blizzard would most certainly disallow it at large tournaments.
do you mean 'almost certainly' in that last line?
because otherwise i don't really see where you're coming from. I don't see why blizzard can't/won't ignore the fact that tournaments (large and small) are using this feature to save games that would otherwise be hugely controversial. Well, not ignore so much as choose not to enforce the EULA in those cases.
If you mean that in your opinion they won't allow it at high-profile events because it sets a bad precedent then i see what you mean, although i disagree. But if you mean that they for some reason CANNOT allow it at larger tournaments then i don't see why that's the case.
On April 17 2012 02:29 TheSuperCow wrote: So I fixed the join order thing & updated OP.
I don't know if there should be a pause at the start or something in case players joined in the wrong slots... They might see something they shouldn't :o
I guess I could also make it so AI players could take over for players, as this will not work right now.
You should add that pause thing if your goal is to provide a usable program for fixing tournament issues.
Thank you btw, good thing you are doing here.
The contingency usecase for a tournament using this tool in the event of a disconnect would be the following:
Upon disconnect, record the game time of the disconnect, agree on a resume time, and inform the involved players/teams and third parties.
Take the game off the stream and have casters keep the audience entertained or roll some commercials/overlays.
Check/review the replays on the various client computers for corruption, then pick and salvage the best copy to distribute later.
Resolve internet and/or computer problems that led to the disconnect.
Distribute the chosen replay copy to the client computers of the players and casters.
Start up the SC2 clients and this resume tool on all the involved client computers.
Have all parties pick the distributed replay copy, set the agreed time to resume from, and press the inject button of this tool.
Create a new custom game the same way you did the game that the disconnect happened in (same host, players and casters in their previous slots, possibly go by a screenshot made earlier).
Start the new custom game and let all involved SC2 clients fast forward to the agreed time shortly before the disconnect.
When all SC2 clients have reached the agreed time, they should be in pause mode.
Upon countdown, unpause the game and put it back on stream, continue the cast.
When the game has concluded in an orderly fashion, re-start all SC2 clients and quit the resume tool on all client computers to leave contingency mode and operate normal again.
So a pause at the start before the fast forward isn't necessary I think as this can be done by an admin without the respective player present at that time. AI support would also just be a gimmick, and not used in a tournament setting.
I suppose when a disconnect happens, no replay is saved for the player who disconnected. This would indeed make it necessary to transfer the replay file between computers. It might be the best idea to ensure everything works anyhow.
Regarding the player slots: Starcraft 2 does not actually use player slots, it merely uses teams, and the order players appear in teams is the order they joined in; it is not possible to reorder players in the same team. This is okay for 1v1's, but it might be cumbersome to get the players into the right slots for 2v2's and so on. Observers do not actually affect the game, so it does not matter what order they are in, or if there are more or less present than in the original game.
But yes, this usage would work.
Note that I have not actually tested this application (and especially the latest version) with more than two players, much less observers (although they should make no difference), so if someone could, I would much appreciate it.
So if a player joins a custom game and lands in slot 2 of a team, he is still handled internally as the first player of that team because he joined first? What if there is a player who joins first, lands in slot 1 of a team, a second player lands in slot 2, but then the former player leaves the game and his slot 1 will be filled by a third player, which player is handled internally as the first player for that team?
As for observers: I think they might be needed if they previously (before the disconnect) typed something in All chat? Or how will the fast forward of the replay react if that "player" of the observer team is not there? Will the chat text simply be filtered out?
Which leads me to wonder: As the time for loading and fast forwarding of a replay upon entering a custom game largely depends on the type of computer, some will reach the resume time more quickly than others. Why does this not screw things up? Do the replayed commands from one client not translate to commands in the other clients? And is that why each client has to load the replay themselves?
half-way down someone has summarized. It could be that they'll support this too, although it might be hard for them to set it as an exemption from the warden thing.
Dustin Bowder just said "we support IT" in the video. "IT" doesn't necessarily mean the mod or hack. I take it as Dustin Bowder is saying they support the idea of adding a feature for stronger colors in the SC2 client but not that they support a mod. Blizzard cannot endorse mods, even if the mods are not harmful to Blizzard or the SC2 community. I guarantee you that if one of the big tournaments like IPL or MLG ran this color mod, they would hear from Blizzard.
While Blizzard cannot endorse any mods, Blizzard can turn a blind eye to certain mods. IMO, the color mod and this resume game mod may qualify as mods that Blizzard can turn a blind eye to because it does no harm to Blizzard and the SC2 community endorses it. However, Blizzard would only turn a blind eye to these mods for individual use or small tourney use - Blizzard would most certainly disallow it at large tournaments.
do you mean 'almost certainly' in that last line?
because otherwise i don't really see where you're coming from. I don't see why blizzard can't/won't ignore the fact that tournaments (large and small) are using this feature to save games that would otherwise be hugely controversial. Well, not ignore so much as choose not to enforce the EULA in those cases.
If you mean that in your opinion they won't allow it at high-profile events because it sets a bad precedent then i see what you mean, although i disagree. But if you mean that they for some reason CANNOT allow it at larger tournaments then i don't see why that's the case.
Orb uses the color mod when he casts some pretty big tournaments. Yet we haven't heard about him being banned for using it.
On April 13 2012 14:11 ReachTheSky wrote: Interesting but i can't see how this would actually be of use. Maybe, just maybe for tournaments but then again i can't see organizers allowing a third party program like this. Who knows though. Maybe you should add a poll to the OP to get the communities opinion on the matter.
Did you watch the GSTL finals dude? I'm pretty sure if Blizz would approve something like this or make their own similar program, this would have solved many problems similar to those seen in the finals...
On April 17 2012 02:29 TheSuperCow wrote: So I fixed the join order thing & updated OP.
I don't know if there should be a pause at the start or something in case players joined in the wrong slots... They might see something they shouldn't :o
I guess I could also make it so AI players could take over for players, as this will not work right now.
You should add that pause thing if your goal is to provide a usable program for fixing tournament issues.
Thank you btw, good thing you are doing here.
The contingency usecase for a tournament using this tool in the event of a disconnect would be the following:
Upon disconnect, record the game time of the disconnect, agree on a resume time, and inform the involved players/teams and third parties.
Take the game off the stream and have casters keep the audience entertained or roll some commercials/overlays.
Check/review the replays on the various client computers for corruption, then pick and salvage the best copy to distribute later.
Resolve internet and/or computer problems that led to the disconnect.
Distribute the chosen replay copy to the client computers of the players and casters.
Start up the SC2 clients and this resume tool on all the involved client computers.
Have all parties pick the distributed replay copy, set the agreed time to resume from, and press the inject button of this tool.
Create a new custom game the same way you did the game that the disconnect happened in (same host, players and casters in their previous slots, possibly go by a screenshot made earlier).
Start the new custom game and let all involved SC2 clients fast forward to the agreed time shortly before the disconnect.
When all SC2 clients have reached the agreed time, they should be in pause mode.
Upon countdown, unpause the game and put it back on stream, continue the cast.
When the game has concluded in an orderly fashion, re-start all SC2 clients and quit the resume tool on all client computers to leave contingency mode and operate normal again.
So a pause at the start before the fast forward isn't necessary I think as this can be done by an admin without the respective player present at that time. AI support would also just be a gimmick, and not used in a tournament setting.
I suppose when a disconnect happens, no replay is saved for the player who disconnected. This would indeed make it necessary to transfer the replay file between computers. It might be the best idea to ensure everything works anyhow.
Regarding the player slots: Starcraft 2 does not actually use player slots, it merely uses teams, and the order players appear in teams is the order they joined in; it is not possible to reorder players in the same team. This is okay for 1v1's, but it might be cumbersome to get the players into the right slots for 2v2's and so on. Observers do not actually affect the game, so it does not matter what order they are in, or if there are more or less present than in the original game.
But yes, this usage would work.
Note that I have not actually tested this application (and especially the latest version) with more than two players, much less observers (although they should make no difference), so if someone could, I would much appreciate it.
So if a player joins a custom game and lands in slot 2 of a team, he is still handled internally as the first player of that team because he joined first? What if there is a player who joins first, lands in slot 1 of a team, a second player lands in slot 2, but then the former player leaves the game and his slot 1 will be filled by a third player, which player is handled internally as the first player for that team?
As for observers: I think they might be needed if they previously (before the disconnect) typed something in All chat? Or how will the fast forward of the replay react if that "player" of the observer team is not there? Will the chat text simply be filtered out?
Which leads me to wonder: As the time for loading and fast forwarding of a replay upon entering a custom game largely depends on the type of computer, some will reach the resume time more quickly than others. Why does this not screw things up? Do the replayed commands from one client not translate to commands in the other clients? And is that why each client has to load the replay themselves?
Basically, there is an internal order of the players, which is the order in which they joined. I am not sure what happens when a player leaves and another joins; the new player might take the old players spot in the "join order", or he might be added at the end. I have not tested this. When Starcraft 2 runs through the players to determine spawn locations and create starting units, it iterates through them in this internal order. The index in this list is used as a unique identifier for each player. Each player is additionally assigned to a team. Players are sorted within a team by their internal index, ie. by the join order. My code tries to match players in the game to the players in the replay by rearranging the internal order so that it matches the order from the original game. It associates them by their position within each team. eg. the first player in the first team is moved to where the first player in the first team was in the original game.
It is not possible to land in slot 2 of team 1 unless slot 1 of team 1 is already occupied. If slot 1 is occupied, it will then be impossible to "swap" those two players, again since Starcraft 2 merely maintains which team each player is on, and then sorts them by the join order. There is no slot number.
Observers are somewhat treated as their own team, although my code sort of ignores observers since they have no effect on the game, perhaps besides chat as you mention. Any events from players not present in the game (including chat) is ignored, so chat from observers who are no longer present will not appear (theoretically, I have not tested this specifically).
As for your last question: none of the events present in the replay (which are quickly processed upon starting the game) are transmitted over the network, not even the pause at the end when the time is reached. For what the game is concerned, these actions might as well be part of the map. It is as if the entire replay was scripted into the map, or at least up until the specified time. This is why all players must choose the same replay (or replay from the same game) and the same resume time. The players can both choose their own replay from the same game, but they must be identical (eg they must both last) until the specified resume time. If something is different between the computers, it is as if they are playing on two different maps; the game cannot possibly stay synchronized then.
In fact, the first action sent over Battle.net (besides any chat) is an unpause. This might seem weird since Battle.net saw no preceding pause, and from a little googling it appears maps can not actually pause the game (unlike in wc3), but it is okay since Battle.net cares not about the state of the game; it merely relays the actions between players. The players can speed through the game at different speeds, this is true, but one game can only progress past a "tick" (the game runs at 16 ticks per second) at which it is certain it will not receive further actions for. Most likely, the game always runs with a "gap", a number of ticks that it can progress without worrying about receiving an action saying that something happened during those ticks. All clients must continually confirm that they have reached a particular point in the game, and that they will not send new actions until a specific tick. This introduces delay. The "gap" of one client will equal the lowest confirmed tick from another client - current tick. In other words, one client can progress up until the point at which all other clients have confirmed they will not send actions. If that made any sense. I'm confusing myself. So, uh, what was my point again... uh, the gap increases according to game speed I guess? Yes, it does. Before I introduced the pause, I had it so it reduced the game speed 40 seconds before it reached the desired time. The reason for this is that the delay/gap had grown so large due to the high game speed that it overshot the time by a few seconds. The pause gives the game some time to realize we are back at normal speed and reduce the delay. If the gap reaches 0, the lag screen will appear, since not all clients are keeping up, and if it grows too large the game will speed up since the game thinks it's lagging behind.
I could be wrong on any point here, since I have not actually reverse engineered the network parts of Starcraft 2, but I'm probably not so far off. It could also be that Battle.net decides the tick at which actions will occur, instead of the client working out a delay on it's own. This would decrease lag but increase delay.
Anyways, I was on a roll so I typed a lot. This is all just my current understanding, so I could be wrong on any part of this post.
On April 18 2012 00:18 Grovbolle wrote: Orb uses the color mod when he casts some pretty big tournaments. Yet we haven't heard about him being banned for using it.
When I say "big tournaments," I mean tournaments like IPL, MLG, and GSL. I don't recall Orb using the color mod at IPL or MLG (heck, I don't even recall Orb casting at IPL or MLG before but I may be wrong).
On April 17 2012 22:27 kerpal wrote: If you mean that in your opinion they won't allow it at high-profile events because it sets a bad precedent then i see what you mean, although i disagree.
^^^^^^
this
If Blizzard allows the color mod at IPL, MLG, or GSL, then it opens a whole other can of worms. What if smaller tournament organizers see IPL, MLG, and GSL are allowed to use mods and want to gamble that Blizzard won't enforce LAN hacks - we all know that Blizzard has already made mistakes in "blacklisting" tournament IPs that properly regiestered in advance with Blizzard for the tournament.
On April 17 2012 05:08 Shinobi1982 wrote: So it would defiantly be against Blizzards terms of use to use the program. But if tournaments would use and they did not show the 3rd party program at work... Let's say someone disconnects, stream director switches the stream video to the casters, casters don't mention anything about the 3rd party program in use. Then when the game resumes from the point of disconnect stream director switches to the ingame footage 3-5 sec after the disconnect point. Well basically however the stream director seems it fit... bla bla.
My point is, if the 3rd party program is not shown on stream "at work" nor being talked about, how much would it hurt Blizzard???
in no way does it hurt blizzard, but the danger is that accounts will be banned for hacking and tournaments will lose licences.. i think that the most likely scenario is a quiet few emails are exchanged and the tournaments quietly start using it and blizzard turns a blind eye.
What ever happened with the 'stronger colours' mod? They claimed that blizzard supported that.
half-way down someone has summarized. It could be that they'll support this too, although it might be hard for them to set it as an exemption from the warden thing.
I want to note that the first question in this interview was about any alternate solution to tournament disconnects and browder's answer was that some of these solutions are big engineering tasks and some of them may be impossible for them to do.
I guess by some of them he meant the ones that aren't this one because it doesn't seem like a big engineering task or impossible. But then why even think or talk about the impossible solutions at all and instead talk about the reasons they haven't done this solution?
Did Blizzard really not see this solution or was Browder just trying to make the problem seem much harder to fix than it really is to trick the fans?
Not only does it help solve a huge problem of the community, but it is a POWERFUL training tool.
Suddenly, you do not need to ask: "What if I did this differently?"
You could very well just do it and see for yourself!
But the MAJOR problem (for Blizzard) is that this is technically a hack, and it could get you banned for using it.
What I would do (and I suspect many will do) is use it anyway, but instead of using it in their clients, they would download a pirate copy of the game (that can play outside B.net) and use this tool offline, so they can't get banned.
So this would promote piracy, all because Blizzard is too blind and greedy for their own good.
TheSuperCow, would you consider putting this project on a website such as Github, Google Code, or Sourceforge? Or if you don't want to do that yourself, would you mind formally giving your work a permissive license so someone else can? I'm sure there are a number of coders on TL that appreciate you have released your source code and would like to help if they can.
On April 18 2012 05:57 Attribute wrote: TheSuperCow, would you consider putting this project on a website such as Github, Google Code, or Sourceforge? Or if you don't want to do that yourself, would you mind formally giving your work a permissive license so someone else can? I'm sure there are a number of coders on TL that appreciate you have released your source code and would like to help if they can.
half-way down someone has summarized. It could be that they'll support this too, although it might be hard for them to set it as an exemption from the warden thing.
Dustin Bowder just said "we support IT" in the video. "IT" doesn't necessarily mean the mod or hack. I take it as Dustin Bowder is saying they support the idea of adding a feature for stronger colors in the SC2 client but not that they support a mod. Blizzard cannot endorse mods, even if the mods are not harmful to Blizzard or the SC2 community. I guarantee you that if one of the big tournaments like IPL or MLG ran this color mod, they would hear from Blizzard.
While Blizzard cannot endorse any mods, Blizzard can turn a blind eye to certain mods. IMO, the color mod and this resume game mod may qualify as mods that Blizzard can turn a blind eye to because it does no harm to Blizzard and the SC2 community endorses it. However, Blizzard would only turn a blind eye to these mods for individual use or small tourney use - Blizzard would most certainly disallow it at large tournaments.
There's no way Blizzard will turn a blind eye to it. It's an outright hack that modifies working memory. The published code is basically a guide on how to make other SC2 hacks. Even if they don't outright ban people who use it they're going to move memory addresses around and break the method by which it works.
half-way down someone has summarized. It could be that they'll support this too, although it might be hard for them to set it as an exemption from the warden thing.
Dustin Bowder just said "we support IT" in the video. "IT" doesn't necessarily mean the mod or hack. I take it as Dustin Bowder is saying they support the idea of adding a feature for stronger colors in the SC2 client but not that they support a mod. Blizzard cannot endorse mods, even if the mods are not harmful to Blizzard or the SC2 community. I guarantee you that if one of the big tournaments like IPL or MLG ran this color mod, they would hear from Blizzard.
While Blizzard cannot endorse any mods, Blizzard can turn a blind eye to certain mods. IMO, the color mod and this resume game mod may qualify as mods that Blizzard can turn a blind eye to because it does no harm to Blizzard and the SC2 community endorses it. However, Blizzard would only turn a blind eye to these mods for individual use or small tourney use - Blizzard would most certainly disallow it at large tournaments.
There's no way Blizzard will turn a blind eye to it. It's an outright hack that modifies working memory. The published code is basically a guide on how to make other SC2 hacks. Even if they don't outright ban people who use it they're going to move memory addresses around and break the method by which it works.
But then shouldn't they ban orb and shut down the esv korean weekly for using the stronger color mod on stream immediately? Then update the game to break the mod? Why haven't they done that yet?
On April 15 2012 16:57 Xapti wrote: I don't know if you've already done this (I think replay viewers have this info?), but you should probably indicate the order the players joined the lobby/map (player numbers) in the GUI so that when it's remade they can get it right without much hassle.
That would be a lot more work and will not be easy. UI alterations is an entirely new can of worms that one might not want to open, and it definitely would go way beyond the scope of this proof of concept. So far this program does not replace functions of the game. It simply calls some more of its subroutines to achieve piggybacking replay instructions when opening a custom game. This would, however, be the most sensible way Blizzard could/would incorporate this into the client, as I mentioned earlier.
I think you misunderstood what I said. I'm just talking about the program itself saying which order the players joined the game, not to actually display that information in the SC2 client itself. Not only that, but I'd say that displaying it in-game wouldn't be nearly as hard as you'd think, not that it needs to be done.
Oh another thing that could be added to this program that would be convenient would be indicating the times any player left the game. Considering that this is usually just the length of the replay (1v1 games) that doesn't make it too useful, but it DOES make it useful for games with multiple players, like 2v2 games.
On April 16 2012 22:18 scsnow wrote: Viewing the replay is already in SC2, they just have to add mutiplayer support for it and a "play from here" button.
Wow Mr small post... you actually gave a really good idea. Not only does this program load replays as games, but it can be used to watch replays with other players, a feature many people have also wanted.
The "play from here" button is also a really good idea that could maybe be implemented in this program, but it certainly a bit of an additional challenge compared to what's already been done.
On April 15 2012 23:50 skeldark wrote: I get it. Btw Sc2 lan servers already exist.
Whoa. Apparently I'm late to the party. Where does this exist?
------ if I'm not allowed to post this, someone please PM me or something and I'll edit it out, not sure on etiquette there User was warned for this post
Why is the site not allowed to be posted? It wasn't that long ago when there was an iCCup link on the sidebar of TL.
You are amazing dude The potential of that thing is limitless! For training or simply for entertainment value I really hope blizzard takes up on your idea and makes it an official mode Thank you for showing the way!
I forgot some files in the source code .zip. I updated the link, it should compile now.
On April 18 2012 05:57 Attribute wrote: TheSuperCow, would you consider putting this project on a website such as Github, Google Code, or Sourceforge? Or if you don't want to do that yourself, would you mind formally giving your work a permissive license so someone else can? I'm sure there are a number of coders on TL that appreciate you have released your source code and would like to help if they can.
I do not care what people do with the source code, but for formalities sake (and legally, stupid as it is), let's say it's released under the MIT license. Note that it uses udis86 (http://udis86.sourceforge.net/) whose website claims BSD license, but there is no LICENSE file included with the source code. I don't know which version, and I don't know what this means, since I do not care to research it (but I do believe the BSD licenses are quite permissive). I will happily develop my own x86 disassembly library if it comes to that.
I will not put it up on a website at this time, I'm sorry. If anyone wishes to do that, be my guest. They can even claim it as theirs, I care not.
On April 18 2012 07:57 theBullFrog wrote: You know what i'd really love ? if you were to stream and explain how this work as a tutorial or just for us peopel who want to learn
My apologies, but I will be unable to do this. If anyone else wants to, go ahead.
On April 15 2012 16:57 Xapti wrote: I don't know if you've already done this (I think replay viewers have this info?), but you should probably indicate the order the players joined the lobby/map (player numbers) in the GUI so that when it's remade they can get it right without much hassle.
That would be a lot more work and will not be easy. UI alterations is an entirely new can of worms that one might not want to open, and it definitely would go way beyond the scope of this proof of concept. So far this program does not replace functions of the game. It simply calls some more of its subroutines to achieve piggybacking replay instructions when opening a custom game. This would, however, be the most sensible way Blizzard could/would incorporate this into the client, as I mentioned earlier.
I think you misunderstood what I said. I'm just talking about the program itself saying which order the players joined the game, not to actually display that information in the SC2 client itself. Not only that, but I'd say that displaying it in-game wouldn't be nearly as hard as you'd think, not that it needs to be done.
Oh another thing that could be added to this program that would be convenient would be indicating the times any player left the game. Considering that this is usually just the length of the replay (1v1 games) that doesn't make it too useful, but it DOES make it useful for games with multiple players, like 2v2 games.
On April 16 2012 22:18 scsnow wrote: Viewing the replay is already in SC2, they just have to add mutiplayer support for it and a "play from here" button.
Wow Mr small post... you actually gave a really good idea. Not only does this program load replays as games, but it can be used to watch replays with other players, a feature many people have also wanted.
The "play from here" button is also a really good idea that could maybe be implemented in this program, but it certainly a bit of an additional challenge compared to what's already been done.
On April 15 2012 23:50 skeldark wrote: I get it. Btw Sc2 lan servers already exist.
Whoa. Apparently I'm late to the party. Where does this exist?
------ if I'm not allowed to post this, someone please PM me or something and I'll edit it out, not sure on etiquette there User was warned for this post
Why is the site not allowed to be posted? It wasn't that long ago when there was an iCCup link on the sidebar of TL.
Very good point.
The order players joined is no longer significant. The visual slot on screen which a player occupies is.
True, UI alterations would probably not be much work, and I don't know if it is so much different from what the program already does.
The program could indeed display the times when players left and when the replay ends, as you would typically try to resume from a disconnect a second or two before the player disconnected, but I do not intend to add it at this time. Maybe if the program sees widespread use.
Real shared replay viewing would be a fun feature to add. Maybe I'll take a look at that...
Best of luck to you mate I hope it develops in to something special. I'm a little nervous to use it at the minute incase Blizz pull out the banhammer but will keep a close eye on it. Cheers
On April 18 2012 05:57 Attribute wrote: TheSuperCow, would you consider putting this project on a website such as Github, Google Code, or Sourceforge? Or if you don't want to do that yourself, would you mind formally giving your work a permissive license so someone else can? I'm sure there are a number of coders on TL that appreciate you have released your source code and would like to help if they can.
I do not care what people do with the source code, but for formalities sake (and legally, stupid as it is), let's say it's released under the MIT license. Note that it uses udis86 (http://udis86.sourceforge.net/) whose website claims BSD license, but there is no LICENSE file included with the source code. I don't know which version, and I don't know what this means, since I do not care to research it (but I do believe the BSD licenses are quite permissive). I will happily develop my own x86 disassembly library if it comes to that.
I will not put it up on a website at this time, I'm sorry. If anyone wishes to do that, be my guest. They can even claim it as theirs, I care not.
Thank you TheSuperCow for formally releasing your code under the MIT license.
I have placed the code at https://sourceforge.net/p/sc2replayresume/ for anyone who wishes to take part. I will update the SourceForge page whenever TheSuperCow releases future versions of the program. I won't be able to make any contributions myself for at least the next two weeks, but I hope to do so after that.
I know that this pogram isn't cheats but seriously that's how hard it is for someone to make a hack for a game? LOL no wonder developers don't waste time trying to stop haxors. Shows you how good anti cheat is too. What a joke.
Quite suprisingly this thread only has 35 pages for it's impact. Got a lot of mention as well yesterday in State of the Game by all guests including Adam from MLG.
Blizzard must be lurking around here as well,... somewhere...
Awesome work bringing this to light in such a matter.
On April 19 2012 00:53 ngri wrote: Got a lot of mention as well yesterday in State of the Game by all guests including Adam from MLG.
The State of the Game and Adam from the MLG started talking about TheSuperCow's program at 31:27 mark of this video:
(they also talk about it at the 1:49:00 mark of the video but only very briefly)
Adam mentions that MLG is looking into TheSuperCow's program and that MLG may talk to Blizzard about this.
I would be very surprised if Blizzard gave MLG permission to use this. However, if MLG, IPL, GOM, and Dreamhack all requested that Blizzard allow them to use this program, Blizzard may just go ahead and add some type of resume game feature (not necessarily resuming off a replay like this program) to placate the big tournaments.
On April 18 2012 05:57 Attribute wrote: TheSuperCow, would you consider putting this project on a website such as Github, Google Code, or Sourceforge? Or if you don't want to do that yourself, would you mind formally giving your work a permissive license so someone else can? I'm sure there are a number of coders on TL that appreciate you have released your source code and would like to help if they can.
I do not care what people do with the source code, but for formalities sake (and legally, stupid as it is), let's say it's released under the MIT license. Note that it uses udis86 (http://udis86.sourceforge.net/) whose website claims BSD license, but there is no LICENSE file included with the source code. I don't know which version, and I don't know what this means, since I do not care to research it (but I do believe the BSD licenses are quite permissive). I will happily develop my own x86 disassembly library if it comes to that.
I will not put it up on a website at this time, I'm sorry. If anyone wishes to do that, be my guest. They can even claim it as theirs, I care not.
Awesome. For those who don't know, MIT and BSD licenses are esentially 'do whatever you want with code, just don't sue me if something goes wrong'
On April 18 2012 17:20 TheSuperCow wrote: Real shared replay viewing would be a fun feature to add. Maybe I'll take a look at that...
Would be amazing. If you could somehow make it so they are one in the same and you seemlessly go from watching a shared replay to taking control...
On April 18 2012 17:20 TheSuperCow wrote: Real shared replay viewing would be a fun feature to add. Maybe I'll take a look at that...
I don't know the exact workings of the tool, but I guess one could set up a custom game with 2 AI players and me & friends as observers, then play the replay at 1x speed. That way, the AI players are 'playing' and me & friends can do the observing...
If Blizzard ever introduced shared replay viewing, I think they would use the party system of BNET for it, because I think that would be a lot easier with a lot of the synchronization stuff alread available for party play.
The implementation sounds very different. This once executes the actions from the replay in a normal game. The one you linked, creates a multiplayer savegame while watching the replay, and then allows you to use that savegame as the starting point of a game.
On April 18 2012 17:20 TheSuperCow wrote: Real shared replay viewing would be a fun feature to add. Maybe I'll take a look at that...
I don't know the exact workings of the tool, but I guess one could set up a custom game with 2 AI players and me & friends as observers, then play the replay at 1x speed. That way, the AI players are 'playing' and me & friends can do the observing...
This would not work right now. I will need to disable the AI for that to work, since otherwise the AI interferes with the actions from the replay, and things will just look very strange.
Yeah, I didn't say it would be working immediately But to me it seemed the easiest solution without requiring funky stuff with the observer controls and players' vision/camera/etc.
On April 18 2012 02:28 coolcor wrote: want to note that the first question in this interview was about any alternate solution to tournament disconnects and browder's answer was that some of these solutions are big engineering tasks and some of them may be impossible for them to do.
I guess by some of them he meant the ones that aren't this one because it doesn't seem like a big engineering task or impossible. But then why even think or talk about the impossible solutions at all and instead talk about the reasons they haven't done this solution?
Dustin Bowder may be referring to a reconnect feature. I think a reconnect feature is a bit more complicated than other solutions.
On April 18 2012 02:28 coolcor wrote: want to note that the first question in this interview was about any alternate solution to tournament disconnects and browder's answer was that some of these solutions are big engineering tasks and some of them may be impossible for them to do.
I guess by some of them he meant the ones that aren't this one because it doesn't seem like a big engineering task or impossible. But then why even think or talk about the impossible solutions at all and instead talk about the reasons they haven't done this solution?
Dustin Bowder may be referring to a reconnect feature. I think a reconnect feature is a bit more complicated than other solutions.
Reconnect is already in the game actually. I've been completely disconnected from the Internet, had my connection restored, and was able to get back into the game without getting dropped. This doesn't work in the case of crashes, but for network outages, it's in the game. The timer just isn't very long.
On April 18 2012 02:28 coolcor wrote: want to note that the first question in this interview was about any alternate solution to tournament disconnects and browder's answer was that some of these solutions are big engineering tasks and some of them may be impossible for them to do.
I guess by some of them he meant the ones that aren't this one because it doesn't seem like a big engineering task or impossible. But then why even think or talk about the impossible solutions at all and instead talk about the reasons they haven't done this solution?
Dustin Bowder may be referring to a reconnect feature. I think a reconnect feature is a bit more complicated than other solutions.
Reconnect is already in the game actually. I've been completely disconnected from the Internet, had my connection restored, and was able to get back into the game without getting dropped. This doesn't work in the case of crashes, but for network outages, it's in the game. The timer just isn't very long.
Yeah my internet completely dies a decent amount but I always make it back into the game by the time it reconnects. Thank god to or I would have a lot of losses rofl.
Is there a good reason why Blizzard couldn't, at the very least, allow someone to pause the timer on the Waiting For Player screen? If my opponent has been disconnected then I don't see why I shouldn't be allowed to wait as long as I want for them to come back.
On April 19 2012 14:15 Severian wrote: Is there a good reason why Blizzard couldn't, at the very least, allow someone to pause the timer on the Waiting For Player screen? If my opponent has been disconnected then I don't see why I shouldn't be allowed to wait as long as I want for them to come back.
That could be done extremely easily, actually.
Instead of automatically winning when the timer expires, blizzard could instead unlock a button that says 'Claim Victory!'. The remaining player could immediately push the button to win if they wanted (imitating current functionality), but a player could equally decide to wait a while longer for his opponent to reconnect.
On April 19 2012 14:03 Excalibur_Z wrote: Reconnect is already in the game actually. I've been completely disconnected from the Internet, had my connection restored, and was able to get back into the game without getting dropped. This doesn't work in the case of crashes, but for network outages, it's in the game. The timer just isn't very long.
No it's not. Your internet can drop but as long as you get the same IP address and are back up before the client and server (sc2 and battle.net) decides to give up on the connection, you can resume play.
They could increase the timeout before they decide to drop a connection, but that wouldn't really allow people to reconnect if their IP address changed or they left the game. You also want a decent timeout to prevent significant overhead on dead connections.
On April 19 2012 14:03 Excalibur_Z wrote: Reconnect is already in the game actually. I've been completely disconnected from the Internet, had my connection restored, and was able to get back into the game without getting dropped. This doesn't work in the case of crashes, but for network outages, it's in the game. The timer just isn't very long.
No it's not. Your internet can drop but as long as you get the same IP address and are back up before the client and server (sc2 and battle.net) decides to give up on the connection, you can resume play.
They could increase the timeout before they decide to drop a connection, but that wouldn't really allow people to reconnect if their IP address changed or they left the game. You also want a decent timeout to prevent significant overhead on dead connections.
Yeah, what TheSuperCow said. I don't know if you can get back into the same match if you try to reconnect with a different IP address or if your SC2 client crashes or if you reboot your computer.
A "comprehensive reconnect" feature would allow you to get back into the same game off a SC2 crash, an IP address change, or even a computer reboot. I assume Dustin Browder is referring to a "comprehensive reconnect" feature, and not simply reconnecting before the timer runs out.
On April 19 2012 14:15 Severian wrote: Is there a good reason why Blizzard couldn't, at the very least, allow someone to pause the timer on the Waiting For Player screen? If my opponent has been disconnected then I don't see why I shouldn't be allowed to wait as long as I want for them to come back.
This would be a good feature for 1vs1. I don't know if this is a good feature for 4vs4 ladder though or 6vs6 custom map games - if I'm laddering 4vs4 or playing 6vs6 custom map games and somebody is lagging, I really want them to be kicked out of the game permanently.
On April 19 2012 14:15 Severian wrote: Is there a good reason why Blizzard couldn't, at the very least, allow someone to pause the timer on the Waiting For Player screen? If my opponent has been disconnected then I don't see why I shouldn't be allowed to wait as long as I want for them to come back.
This would be a good feature for 1vs1. I don't know if this is a good feature for 4vs4 ladder though or 6vs6 custom map games - if I'm laddering 4vs4 or playing 6vs6 custom map games and somebody is lagging, I really want them to be kicked out of the game permanently.
Yeah, it would be a completely ridiculous feature for a 5v5 game. Look at Dota2, everybody hates the reconnect feature where if your PC crashes you could still reboot and get back in the game.
On April 19 2012 14:03 Excalibur_Z wrote: Reconnect is already in the game actually. I've been completely disconnected from the Internet, had my connection restored, and was able to get back into the game without getting dropped. This doesn't work in the case of crashes, but for network outages, it's in the game. The timer just isn't very long.
No it's not. Your internet can drop but as long as you get the same IP address and are back up before the client and server (sc2 and battle.net) decides to give up on the connection, you can resume play.
They could increase the timeout before they decide to drop a connection, but that wouldn't really allow people to reconnect if their IP address changed or they left the game. You also want a decent timeout to prevent significant overhead on dead connections.
Yeah, what TheSuperCow said. I don't know if you can get back into the same match if you try to reconnect with a different IP address or if your SC2 client crashes or if you reboot your computer.
A "comprehensive reconnect" feature would allow you to get back into the same game off a SC2 crash, an IP address change, or even a computer reboot. I assume Dustin Browder is referring to a "comprehensive reconnect" feature, and not simply reconnecting before the timer runs out.
I don't understand why you'd have to have the same IP. You'll need to login anyways, so if a player logs in and there is a game he's supposed to re-enter, simply do that..
On April 19 2012 14:03 Excalibur_Z wrote: Reconnect is already in the game actually. I've been completely disconnected from the Internet, had my connection restored, and was able to get back into the game without getting dropped. This doesn't work in the case of crashes, but for network outages, it's in the game. The timer just isn't very long.
No it's not. Your internet can drop but as long as you get the same IP address and are back up before the client and server (sc2 and battle.net) decides to give up on the connection, you can resume play.
They could increase the timeout before they decide to drop a connection, but that wouldn't really allow people to reconnect if their IP address changed or they left the game. You also want a decent timeout to prevent significant overhead on dead connections.
Yeah, what TheSuperCow said. I don't know if you can get back into the same match if you try to reconnect with a different IP address or if your SC2 client crashes or if you reboot your computer.
A "comprehensive reconnect" feature would allow you to get back into the same game off a SC2 crash, an IP address change, or even a computer reboot. I assume Dustin Browder is referring to a "comprehensive reconnect" feature, and not simply reconnecting before the timer runs out.
I don't understand why you'd have to have the same IP. You'll need to login anyways, so if a player logs in and there is a game he's supposed to re-enter, simply do that..
B.Net doesn't know whether you're dropped because matches are Peer-to-Peer connections only reporting results back to BNet servers.
lol @ people talking about how there's reconnect in sc2 when it's so not reliable. In other games I can restart my PC, reset my router and come back in the game like nothing ever happened. That should be in the game, also with waiting screen and after 1min there should be "drop player" option, so you can wait (very useful when playing with your friends etc), or "drop player" if you want to take someones ladder points
On April 18 2012 02:28 coolcor wrote: want to note that the first question in this interview was about any alternate solution to tournament disconnects and browder's answer was that some of these solutions are big engineering tasks and some of them may be impossible for them to do.
I guess by some of them he meant the ones that aren't this one because it doesn't seem like a big engineering task or impossible. But then why even think or talk about the impossible solutions at all and instead talk about the reasons they haven't done this solution?
Dustin Bowder may be referring to a reconnect feature. I think a reconnect feature is a bit more complicated than other solutions.
Reconnect is already in the game actually. I've been completely disconnected from the Internet, had my connection restored, and was able to get back into the game without getting dropped. This doesn't work in the case of crashes, but for network outages, it's in the game. The timer just isn't very long.
Actually this is a great idea. The timeout you are talking about is 60s.
Is it possible to change it in the map editor?
Otherwise, a small "hack" that would up the time out to 10 minutes or so would allow most situations to recover. Only when a computer crashes will this not work.
I think it could be a good opportunity for players to improve after a game they lost. For example, after a match i lost i could watch the replay and understand the moment where my bigest mistake was. Then, i could reload the game a this point and ask a friend to play vs me, an try to not do this mistake again !
Blizzard had a similar function in warcraft 3, but they decided not to put it in sc2. You could restart saved games in all the players were in the same spots that they were in originally. I am not sure if this is the exact way it worked, because it has been a few years since I tried. Like 6.
I think it could be a good opportunity for players to improve after a game they lost. For example, after a match i lost i could watch the replay and understand the moment where my bigest mistake was. Then, i could reload the game a this point and ask a friend to play vs me, an try to not do this mistake again !
It would be godsend for pro players trying to hone a specific strategy. You could explore all possible angles without wasting time on replaying the whole opening again and again. It could be so useful that I'm almost sure Blizzard will ban it like they did with custom matchmaking, it also had a lot of promise until their lawyers showed. This program is even more against the EULA, the only hope I see is that it may force Blizzard to actually implement a crappier version of this themselves.
On April 20 2012 04:00 SkyQuake wrote: well there is another good thing about this, idra now can continue his rage quit games. i always wondered how those game would have ended.
My first reaction: LOL
, but that is actually a very interesting point. With this hack we could actually see whether players who are famous for gging out of games too early really do that, by restarting games from the moment right before they gged.
I think it could be a good opportunity for players to improve after a game they lost. For example, after a match i lost i could watch the replay and understand the moment where my bigest mistake was. Then, i could reload the game a this point and ask a friend to play vs me, an try to not do this mistake again !
It would be godsend for pro players trying to hone a specific strategy. You could explore all possible angles without wasting time on replaying the whole opening again and again. It could be so useful that I'm almost sure Blizzard will ban it like they did with custom matchmaking, it also had a lot of promise until their lawyers showed. This program is even more against the EULA, the only hope I see is that it may force Blizzard to actually implement a crappier version of this themselves.
Is it possible to resume a game and choosing who plays what and eventually to choose the time marker ? Would it be complicated to implement it ?
On April 20 2012 04:00 SkyQuake wrote: well there is another good thing about this, idra now can continue his rage quit games. i always wondered how those game would have ended.
While this post isn't pure win, I'd wager it's some sort of win alloy.
On April 19 2012 14:03 Excalibur_Z wrote: Reconnect is already in the game actually. I've been completely disconnected from the Internet, had my connection restored, and was able to get back into the game without getting dropped. This doesn't work in the case of crashes, but for network outages, it's in the game. The timer just isn't very long.
No it's not. Your internet can drop but as long as you get the same IP address and are back up before the client and server (sc2 and battle.net) decides to give up on the connection, you can resume play.
They could increase the timeout before they decide to drop a connection, but that wouldn't really allow people to reconnect if their IP address changed or they left the game. You also want a decent timeout to prevent significant overhead on dead connections.
Actually, you don't need the same IP to reconnect within the 60 second time allowance. I have been disconnected multiple times on my dsl connection while playing, and I am able to reconnect via a 3G ISP, (on which I have a different IP) and resume the game (As long as I am able to connect before the 60s timer expires).
On April 19 2012 14:03 Excalibur_Z wrote: Reconnect is already in the game actually. I've been completely disconnected from the Internet, had my connection restored, and was able to get back into the game without getting dropped. This doesn't work in the case of crashes, but for network outages, it's in the game. The timer just isn't very long.
No it's not. Your internet can drop but as long as you get the same IP address and are back up before the client and server (sc2 and battle.net) decides to give up on the connection, you can resume play.
They could increase the timeout before they decide to drop a connection, but that wouldn't really allow people to reconnect if their IP address changed or they left the game. You also want a decent timeout to prevent significant overhead on dead connections.
Actually, you don't need the same IP to reconnect within the 60 second time allowance. I have been disconnected multiple times on my dsl connection while playing, and I am able to reconnect via a 3G ISP, (on which I have a different IP) and resume the game (As long as I am able to connect before the 60s timer expires).
Interesting. Since the protocol uses UDP, it could easily be designed to not actually require the same ip. The connection might be identified by some unique identifier established upon connecting or negotiated through the TCP connection with battle.net. I just assumed it was identified through the IP/port pair as that is the most common. It is still not a "reconnect", as I would argue the connection is never really broken despite losing internet, changing ip and even ISP.
On April 19 2012 14:03 Excalibur_Z wrote: Reconnect is already in the game actually. I've been completely disconnected from the Internet, had my connection restored, and was able to get back into the game without getting dropped. This doesn't work in the case of crashes, but for network outages, it's in the game. The timer just isn't very long.
No it's not. Your internet can drop but as long as you get the same IP address and are back up before the client and server (sc2 and battle.net) decides to give up on the connection, you can resume play.
They could increase the timeout before they decide to drop a connection, but that wouldn't really allow people to reconnect if their IP address changed or they left the game. You also want a decent timeout to prevent significant overhead on dead connections.
Actually, you don't need the same IP to reconnect within the 60 second time allowance. I have been disconnected multiple times on my dsl connection while playing, and I am able to reconnect via a 3G ISP, (on which I have a different IP) and resume the game (As long as I am able to connect before the 60s timer expires).
Interesting. Since the protocol uses UDP, it could easily be designed to not actually require the same ip. The connection might be identified by some unique identifier established upon connecting or negotiated through the TCP connection with battle.net. I just assumed it was identified through the IP/port pair as that is the most common. It is still not a "reconnect", as I would argue the connection is never really broken despite losing internet, changing ip and even ISP.
A big chunk of the world doesn't have a static ip, but get another one every time they connect, so every time they get disconnected they get a new ip. So the same ip isn't required to reconnect.
"2. ADDITIONAL LICENSE LIMITATIONS. The license granted to you in Section 1 is subject to the limitations set forth in Sections 1 and 2 (collectively, the “License Limitations”). Any use of the Service or any Game in violation of the License Limitations will be regarded as a breach of this Agreement and an infringement of Blizzard’s copyrights in and to the Service and/or Game. You agree that you will not, under any circumstances: A. use cheats, automation software (bots), hacks, mods or any other unauthorized third-party software designed to modify the Service, any Game or any Game experience;"
On April 22 2012 02:27 ImANinjaBich wrote: "2. ADDITIONAL LICENSE LIMITATIONS. The license granted to you in Section 1 is subject to the limitations set forth in Sections 1 and 2 (collectively, the “License Limitations”). Any use of the Service or any Game in violation of the License Limitations will be regarded as a breach of this Agreement and an infringement of Blizzard’s copyrights in and to the Service and/or Game. You agree that you will not, under any circumstances: A. use cheats, automation software (bots), hacks, mods or any other unauthorized third-party software designed to modify the Service, any Game or any Game experience;"
That's why the OP clearly states "Note that this is a 3rd party program, it does modify Starcraft 2 in memory, and I provide no warranty; use at your own risk."
On April 22 2012 05:20 ImANinjaBich wrote: It does say that but honestly how many people know that blizzard would ban u for doing that? At your own risk means nothing to most people.
At your own risk means that it has possible implications. What those implications are can be found with little research, and as the OP hints it instead of saying nothing I personally think people can be able to make a conclusion - if not on their own then by reading the thread.
I am one of the many who like this idea, it makes good practice to set up the same situation multiple times and practice specific scenarios over and over again, even though similar things can be reproduced from training maps.
On April 22 2012 05:20 ImANinjaBich wrote: It does say that but honestly how many people know that blizzard would ban u for doing that? At your own risk means nothing to most people.
After 37 pages in this thread, everybody in this thread knew that Blizzard could ban you for using this, probably except for you. If you had read through the 37 pages in this thread (and I have myself), it mentions numerous times by numerous posters that your account is at risk of being banned by Blizzard.
BTW, the language is clear cut by the OP: "Note that this is a 3rd party program, it does modify Starcraft 2 in memory, and I provide no warranty; use at your own risk."
I couldn't have written the disclaimer any more clear than the OP. The disclaimer is crystal clear that you risk being banned for using the program.
Does anyone have reports of pro players using this program? Like MKP, MC, or DRG? Would be interesting to know their take on it. And pro players using this would definitely pressure Blizzard to not to ban (lol imagine they ban Idra or MVP for this then gg esports).
If or when blizzard allows for the use of this program I and my friends will definitely use this, the option to replay late game engagements, or specific strategies from a certain point is fantastic for practice. Tournaments really need this as well, because even with lan, technical issues might occur, power failure etc. but resuming the game from dropping would fix that too. Really hope blizzard allows this, or more likely writes their own. I applaud you sir for showing everyone how quickly one person can write this.
Some of you guys who say "Blizzard shouldnt ban people because they are using this program" dont understand that blizzard cant really tell WHAT program was used. They have their anti-hack tool Warden which checks if a program changed the memory while starcraft is running. Dont be so stupid and believe they get a message like "Player xy used program "Sc2 replay resume version 1.0" etc" and ban them because they have no brain.
So that means that some people could use a small modified program and cheat (as in really "hack" the game and get an unfair advantage) and nobody can tell if the program they used is just good for replay resume or if its used for something else.
So blizzard SHOULD ban people who use just programs like this frequently, because otherwise the ladder will get flooded with hacks.
Dont be so stupid and believe they get a message like "Player xy used program "Sc2 replay resume version 1.0" etc" and ban them
If you got banned, Blizzard wanted that ban to occur. Warden isn't a self-aware cooldude fighting battle.net crime by itself with algorithms. Warden is a weapon that is assigned targets by a human.
Hack detection isn't generic to avoid banning people affected by viruses or using modifications that don't give an unfair advantage. Blizzard higher-ups tell the anti-cheat team what to detect, anything detected is automatically banned on time delay.
On April 24 2012 00:09 MasterReY wrote: Some of you guys who say "Blizzard shouldnt ban people because they are using this program" dont understand that blizzard cant really tell WHAT program was used. They have their anti-hack tool Warden which checks if a program changed the memory while starcraft is running. Dont be so stupid and believe they get a message like "Player xy used program "Sc2 replay resume version 1.0" etc" and ban them because they have no brain.
So that means that some people could use a small modified program and cheat (as in really "hack" the game and get an unfair advantage) and nobody can tell if the program they used is just good for replay resume or if its used for something else.
So blizzard SHOULD ban people who use just programs like this frequently, because otherwise the ladder will get flooded with hacks.
At least SC1 warden was highly specific. It did not care about injected libraries or modifications in general. It had a list of specific addresses in the in memory executable image that it checked. So you'd only get banned for a legit program if you modified the same thing as a cheat program. ApmAlert was in danger of this once, but I think nobody got banned for using it. But of course there is always a remaining risk.
This is completely different from the way ICCup's antihack works. It verifies the whole executable image to checking for modifications. But this blanket approach means that it needs to focus on prevention, and not on punishment.
A fine idea, but how would it work with ladder? People can simply just re-game if it's not on ladder. This function would only be necessary for training and ladder disconnects. While typing I thought of this:
Example: Add a disconnect function where neither player gets points. Put a request rematch button on that particular game in match history, which, the other player would be notified about. If they accept it then you start from the disconnect point, like your program does. If they don't, no ladder points are rewarded, or taken, for either player. Food for thought.
On April 28 2012 06:39 Brotatoes23 wrote: A fine idea, but how would it work with ladder? People can simply just re-game if it's not on ladder. This function would only be necessary for training and ladder disconnects. While typing I thought of this:
Example: Add a disconnect function where neither player gets points. Put a request rematch button on that particular game in match history, which, the other player would be notified about. If they accept it then you start from the disconnect point, like your program does. If they don't, no ladder points are rewarded, or taken, for either player. Food for thought.
That's kind of silly because imagine you are losing a game on ladder. Imagine you have a power cord of your router. Unplug that thing. Disconnect occurs. Then you reconnect, your opponent has issued a resume match request, which you of course deny, knowing that you were losing the game. So what did just happen - everyone who is losing a match will now proceed to disconnect and not lose any points. Good stuff
On April 28 2012 06:39 Brotatoes23 wrote: A fine idea, but how would it work with ladder? People can simply just re-game if it's not on ladder. This function would only be necessary for training and ladder disconnects. While typing I thought of this:
Example: Add a disconnect function where neither player gets points. Put a request rematch button on that particular game in match history, which, the other player would be notified about. If they accept it then you start from the disconnect point, like your program does. If they don't, no ladder points are rewarded, or taken, for either player. Food for thought.
That's kind of silly because imagine you are losing a game on ladder. Imagine you have a power cord of your router. Unplug that thing. Disconnect occurs. Then you reconnect, your opponent has issued a resume match request, which you of course deny, knowing that you were losing the game. So what did just happen - everyone who is losing a match will now proceed to disconnect and not lose any points. Good stuff
Nah, you're thinking of it the wrong way. The person who d/c's is the one who issues the resume match request. While the non-d/c'd gets to decide if they want to regame or continue the game.
On April 28 2012 06:39 Brotatoes23 wrote: A fine idea, but how would it work with ladder? People can simply just re-game if it's not on ladder. This function would only be necessary for training and ladder disconnects. While typing I thought of this:
Example: Add a disconnect function where neither player gets points. Put a request rematch button on that particular game in match history, which, the other player would be notified about. If they accept it then you start from the disconnect point, like your program does. If they don't, no ladder points are rewarded, or taken, for either player. Food for thought.
That's kind of silly because imagine you are losing a game on ladder. Imagine you have a power cord of your router. Unplug that thing. Disconnect occurs. Then you reconnect, your opponent has issued a resume match request, which you of course deny, knowing that you were losing the game. So what did just happen - everyone who is losing a match will now proceed to disconnect and not lose any points. Good stuff
The condescending tone of your reply isn't really appreciated... Your input is appreciated, though. This is just an idea that could, obviously, use work. Now, to expand on it...
Simply put: If you disconnect your router and decided not to ask for a re-game, you'd have a minor point reduction. If you made the request and it went unanswered (say after 48 hours for example) OR was declined, this results in minor point reduction for the other player and no points gained for you. If it is answered for a re-game, it would be added to match history under a new tab, for easy access. You'd both enter the game and start over. Optionally, you could resume and start where you disc'd (if it's worth it) Furthermore, if you decided to start from the disc point, you both could watch the replay (in your own vision only, to refresh the match in your mind) up to that point, and click a "Ready" button when at the disconnect point.
I doubt something like this will ever happen, but it could be pretty rad if it was made in a fair way.
On April 18 2012 17:20 TheSuperCow wrote: <...> Real shared replay viewing would be a fun feature to add. Maybe I'll take a look at that...
I'm surprised this single quote didn't get any attention at all. This would be the top1 feature I'd like to see in SC2. Any chance we can expect research in this direction?
This is obviously super amazing - if I could request one extra feature it would be remembering camera hotkeys. It might seem like a minor thing but it is a pain to rebind them.
Oh and there's the small worry that I might get banned by Blizzard for using it
They really should implement this i mean people keep doing stuff FOR blizzard like this of what the community WANTS and blizzard like doesnt even bat an eyelash at it and it bothers the crap outta me.
TheSuperCow, there is some good news. I think your program and the issue of resuming games after a disconnect has been heard by Blizzard and the SC2 Dev team, as per TeamLiquid's interview with the COO of Blizzard, Paul Sams, and Ilja Rotelli, the Global Community & eSports Director at Blizzard:
Is there any support coming soon, maybe not LAN per se, but anything that will help people pick up from disconnects at least, or something like that, along those lines, to help relieve some of the technical bumps in esports?
PS: I would say we are clearly aware of the challenges that are going on in that regard, and we are trying to find solutions that will alleviate or significantly reduce it. Whether we would do LAN or not, I don’t think that’s something that’s on the table, but we are trying to find other solutions that will address this as much as we can, because we do understand it’s a challenge.
IR: What I can add is, the issue has been brought up, and it has been heard super loud, super clear by the dev team. It’s in the top of their mind at all times.
PS: There’s a handful of people that bring it up far more frequently than anyone wants to hear it.
At IPL4, that scene was a bit amusing, I have to say.
I haven't read all 38 pages, but in the unlikely event that it hasn't been mentioned yet, BW had a program like this and it worked fine, so this isn't such a ludicrous idea for all of the doubters
On May 10 2012 06:05 hottan wrote: Resume replay works, but we cant use resume game toghere. It would be awesome if we could get like a step by step guide! PLEASE
There is a step by step guide.. Read the first post...
a shame that blizard has not impelemented this into their game allready.....i mean, how much work would it be for them?
contact the guy who made this programm, pay him like 1000 bucks to help thema little bit implement it into the game and as some kind of appreciation....bäm, takes like 8 hours of work for 2-3 blizzard employees...
but better bring out a retarded patch that causes only problems and does nothing besides making the lobby look a little bit nicer and make my game lag......holy fuck this guys are retarded
On August 12 2012 05:03 uzushould wrote: a shame that blizard has not impelemented this into their game allready.....i mean, how much work would it be for them?
contact the guy who made this programm, pay him like 1000 bucks to help thema little bit implement it into the game and as some kind of appreciation....bäm, takes like 8 hours of work for 2-3 blizzard employees...
but better bring out a retarded patch that causes only problems and does nothing besides making the lobby look a little bit nicer and make my game lag......holy fuck this guys are retarded
Rumor has it that Blizzard already created the resume from Replay ability quite awhile back, but is holding off deployment until HotS... you'd think they'd toss it in the 1.5 patch with its drastic Battle.net changes. I wish I knew exactly which person said it, but I think it was a pro-gamer who was in talks with Blizzard mentioned it as being a very frustrating thing.
On August 12 2012 04:56 Yoshi- wrote: I am pretty sure that this program cannot host it as multiplayer
It can, it was actually created to host multiplayer. IPL can't use it though, since Blizzard doesn't want anyone to use 3rd party programs which modify SC2. Btw: Technically this program works really similar to a maphack (even if the result is completly different), so it may be detected by Blizzard (dunno if they have hack detection somewhere in this game).
To everyone thinking Blizzard should contact this guy or something: From Blizzards point of view the implementation of this feature is incredible easy. This program simulates the game based on the replay until a specific point. The guy who made the program had to do this since he can't simply change the SC2 binary. However, Blizzard can. They don't need to simulate the game until a specific point in time, they can just load all the data and setup the game directly. Technically this is a completly different approach, and it's way easier. This program doesn't help Blizzard, nor do they need something like this to "learn". I'm pretty sure that the reason why we don't have this feature in the game yet is not related to any kind of technical difficulties. They probably think that delaying this feature until HOTS somehow helps them gaining money or something. In general I feel like Blizzard acts really begrudgingly if they can't get money out of something...
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Ih0aZ.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/UvarA.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/iaTBS.png)
