MPQ Modding Shutdown Petition

On July 27 2012 08:35 Grampz wrote:
Pretty sure blizz might listen to this one, browder has actually told people it was good to use the stronger team color. Maybe they will change some stuff around to allow this kind of stuff.

On July 27 2012 08:36 Cire wrote:
I will quit playing this game and not buy HoTS if can no longer use Stronger Team Colors. The Zerg versus Zerg matchup is simply impossible without it.

On July 27 2012 08:36 Blazinghand wrote:
This would be more successful as a thread on the battle.net forums.

On July 27 2012 08:40 BoggieMan wrote:
if this is whats needed to stop people using hacks, i don't have an issue with mods flying out the window with it.

On July 27 2012 08:36 Raembo wrote:
you should put a link on each of the picture of the mod for other people who might be new and is interested in downloading the mod.
totally support this petition!

On July 27 2012 08:40 BoggieMan wrote:
if this is whats needed to stop people using hacks, i don't have an issue with mods flying out the window with it.

On July 27 2012 08:41 SeraKuDA wrote:
Eh... Mods aren't a huge deal to lose. I think it's only a small percentage of people that use them.

On July 27 2012 08:43 Lumi wrote:


And if you were a part of that percentage, do you think this would be your response to the matter?

On July 27 2012 08:42 Teliko wrote:

It won't stop hackers in the slightest which is why I'm particularly annoyed about it.

On July 27 2012 08:44 SeraKuDA wrote:


Probably, because it's still not a big deal.

On July 27 2012 08:41 SeraKuDA wrote:
Eh... Mods aren't a huge deal to lose. I think it's only a small percentage of people that use them.

On July 27 2012 08:46 Dyme wrote:
I think it's most fair if everyone has the same models and colours. Customization is bad for fair competition imo. I hated WoW PvP most for the amount of retarded add-ons you had to have to be maximum efficient.

It's probably bad for people who have difficulties seeing colours (assuming stronger team colours help them at all), but then Blizz should make a universal official colour blind version, that is easily accessable and the same for everyone.

Yea, and changing background picture... I don't care about at all.

On July 27 2012 08:46 Dyme wrote:
I think it's most fair if everyone has the same models and colours. Customization is bad for fair competition imo. I hated WoW PvP most for the amount of retarded add-ons you had to have to be maximum efficient.

It's probably bad for people who have difficulties seeing colours (assuming stronger team colours help them at all), but then Blizz should make a universal official colour blind version, that is easily accessable and the same for everyone.

Yea, and changing background picture... I don't care about at all.

On July 27 2012 08:49 Wroshe wrote:
Honestly I'm glad about this. Stronger Color Mod in streams is a pain in eye but surely there must have been easier ways to get rid of it.

On July 27 2012 08:45 Antylamon wrote:

Can you clarify, please?

On July 27 2012 08:45 Antylamon wrote:

Can you clarify, please?

On July 27 2012 08:51 Probe1 wrote:
You should really post this on reddit. It's better oriented for utilizing a crowd.

On July 27 2012 08:45 Antylamon wrote:

Can you clarify, please?

On July 27 2012 08:52 Chargelot wrote:

Hacks don't modify MPQ files. Most of the successful hacks are what are referred to as "external". If they edited the MPQ files, Warden would tear them a new one within seconds.

On July 27 2012 08:51 sAsImre wrote:


*honnestly i'm glad that color blind ppl don't have a way to play/stream/commentate the game.

WTH /w some ppl on TL sometimes...

On July 27 2012 09:01 Wroshe wrote:

The thing I don't get it why they use the STC mod (which clearly has about as many fans as detractors) instead of the regular game. I don't see what is stopping tournaments from running 2 streams, one with the mod that burns people's eyes out and one with the regular game.

On July 27 2012 08:48 Antylamon wrote:

The main reason I don't like what Blizz is doing is because I am obsessed with BW voice swap.

I never even played BW very much, but they still left a much larger mark than SC2 sounds did.

On July 27 2012 08:56 CajunMan wrote:
What pisses me off is all of this mods are very easy for Blizzard to implement on there own and everyone would love them for it but no that would never happen.

On July 27 2012 09:03 nafta wrote:


That would be too reasonable though.....Not really blizzard's style.

On July 27 2012 09:03 nafta wrote:


That would be too reasonable though.....Not really blizzard's style.

On July 27 2012 08:58 bokchoi wrote:
The problem is a lot of these things stronger team color, model mods, etc. can give an unfair advantage to those using it. Makes units more clear, stand out, etc. These are not intended features and should be done away with. The fact that a majority of hacks come from this same exact file modification is also a concern. Although, the custom logins, and backgrounds are kind of cool, its a necessary sacrifice to get where we need to be.

On July 27 2012 09:07 Chargelot wrote:

1. Blizzard is not your bitch.
2. Blizzard has designed the EULA to say they can and will ban you for MPQ editing, be glad they supported it for as long as they did.

On July 27 2012 09:07 Chargelot wrote:

1. Blizzard is not your bitch.
2. Blizzard has designed the EULA to say they can and will ban you for MPQ editing, be glad they supported it for as long as they did.

On July 27 2012 09:17 draumr wrote:


You do realize that Blizzard employees have publicly endorsed the use of stronger team colors, right?

Honestly people, this is an unintentional change that happened when they implemented the streaming game files, if enough people get behind this poll they'll most likely add mod support of some type. This isn't going to stop a single hacker, and as for people having slight advantages through modding files it will not change the outcome of a game 99.9% of the time, unless they are colorblind, in which case many people just can no longer play/commentate the game.

I don't even use Mods and would hate to see them removed, even if Blizzard added some of the customization levels instead of allowing full modding it would be good.

On July 27 2012 09:20 Lumi wrote:


You come into this petition thread / crowd just to say "blizz isn't your bitch, be glad they 'supported' you in this for as long as they did"

Really? Betcha wouldn't say this around some real world sc fans just hangin out having this conversation and expressing their remorse for losing these things that they enjoyed. Because then you'd see them looking at you and realize what kind of person you were in that moment for saying that. But you'd see that coming and avoid it IRL, so why not here? We're still just as unimpressed.

On July 27 2012 09:28 trbot wrote:
Red-green colourblind people like me are already pissed enough about the use of red and green to differentiate good and bad. I can't see the friggin' building placement grid properly... I can't see the friggin' tiny red nuke dots since I can't differentiate between the green ground and the red dot... Friend and foe colour schemes make all units look the same to me, which makes team games with a large number of players frustrating.

How much more pissed am I going to be when I can't use any mods to change any of this? How pissed do you think I should be?

On July 27 2012 09:27 Toorgr wrote:
So they only reason you're against the change is because you want your colour mod and custom backgrounds? That sounds weak to me, I guess colour mod makes sense for colorblinds, and even then I'm not sure..

On July 27 2012 09:31 CaptainCharisma wrote:



How about just accepting that you're going to have problems with a game that demands basic skills that you don't have?

On July 27 2012 09:31 CaptainCharisma wrote:



How about just accepting that you're going to have problems with a game that demands basic skills that you don't have?

On July 27 2012 09:33 Lumi wrote:


Except that these mods potentially allow this person to overcome an obstacle. You think you have good advice by telling someone to accept not being able to participate in something, when it would be easy for them to, through this?

On July 27 2012 09:37 AzureHath wrote:
i got your back gav /sign

On July 27 2012 09:41 xrapture wrote:
A multi billion dollar company wants to make it harder for their product to get hacked. Boo hoo, end of the world, eh?

On July 27 2012 09:33 trbot wrote:


I can see that you lack basic reasoning skills, maybe you should accept that you shouldn't chime in on these discussions.

EDIT: maybe I should say something constructive, too. This isn't some fundamental thing I'm lacking. It's not like I can only play at 10apm. I just can't distinguish red and green. This is simple. Whenever a huge strategic advantage would come from the ability to distinguish between red or green, just change one of the colours. Derp.

On July 27 2012 09:41 xrapture wrote:
A multi billion dollar company wants to make it harder for their product to get hacked. Boo hoo, end of the world, eh?

On July 27 2012 09:43 CaptainCharisma wrote:
Cool, personal attacks. We'll see where this gets the debate going.

If you had basic comprehension skills you'd realize that my post wasn't some sort of analysis loaded with reason. It was a suggestion for a crybaby. No reason required or asserted for such a comment.

On July 27 2012 09:22 Chargelot wrote:

I'm sure it's an accident too, but Blizzard employees never speak for Blizzard. It's something you see a lot on the forums, any time someone from Blizzard agrees with something or comments on something with his own personal opinion it's never "official". Which was sort of my point, they could have said "I like this mod" and then banned everyone who used it anyways. The EULA is the master of the rules, not Blizzard Employee X, even if he happens to be David Kim or similar. It was a miracle that they didn't ban for this even with employee endorsement.



Yes I would tell you Blizzard is not your bitch in real life. I'm a student of the University of Delaware, so if you're ever in the area shoot me a PM so I can tell you that Blizzard is not your bitch. But thanks for the laugh.

Cool, personal attacks. We'll see where this gets the debate going.

If you had basic comprehension skills you'd realize that my post wasn't some sort of analysis loaded with reason. It was a suggestion for a crybaby. No reason required or asserted for such a comment.

On July 27 2012 09:39 CaptainCharisma wrote:


Where did I say he cannot participate?

On July 27 2012 09:56 CaptainCharisma wrote:
It's annoying trying to respond to people who quote your post and don't actually address the content of it.

On July 27 2012 09:59 CaptainCharisma wrote:
"Yes, let's all forgo a better quality SC2 experience because a few people are red-green colour-blind, which actually affects maybe 5% of their games."

On July 27 2012 09:49 Antylamon wrote:
The funny thing is, we may be making a petition over something we misinterpreted. It might not be a function which gets rid of MPQ editing at all

Let's just wait and see until the release version of the patch comes out, then vote on the petition if this does turn out to be the case.

On July 27 2012 09:59 CaptainCharisma wrote:
"Yes, let's all forgo a better quality SC2 experience because a few people are red-green colour-blind, which actually affects maybe 5% of their games."

On July 27 2012 10:01 trbot wrote:


What did you want us to say. Your quoted content was a disclaimer, attempting a license to say whatever offensive thing you wanted with no recourse. Allow me to paraphrase it for you. "I wasn't trying to say anything worthwhile, and I wasn't actually making any legitimate point. I was just saying whatever I wanted to, so deal with it."

I get it. You are insensitive because you don't have the particular problem you're saying I should deal with. Why don't you go back to telling diabetics, cancer patients and old people to shut up and deal with their issues.

On July 27 2012 10:07 CaptainCharisma wrote:


You're missing the main point. A diabetic's use of insulin doesn't detract from the quality of other people's lives. If this petition has its intended effect, however, it will detract from other people's experience of SC2 because Blizzard will not be able to go ahead with its planned improvements.

On July 27 2012 10:05 ImmortalTofu wrote:


A few people is 10% of all guys, you're essentially saying "Oh, let's just screw the handicaps, because no ramps make our building look a bit better". He can't see the difference between fucking green and red because of his genetics, don't say its some "basic skill" he's lacking. This is like glasses for those with bad eyes. You want to get rid of glasses, because only 25% of the world benefits from them, and faces generally look better without them? I can't believe some people...

Also, better quality SC2 experience? Streaming SC2 content does what for this game?

On July 27 2012 09:42 sAsImre wrote:


multiple ppl have explained that it doesn't deal at all with hack. Reading is hard hey?

On July 27 2012 10:16 xrapture wrote:


I'm going to trust one of the most successful video game developers in the world over people on TL, sorry.

On July 27 2012 10:17 trbot wrote:


Any computer scientist can tell you that it has nothing to do with hacks. It doesn't require more than a first-year university education in any CS program to know this.

On July 27 2012 08:42 Teliko wrote:

Good point. Adding them now.

It won't stop hackers in the slightest which is why I'm particularly annoyed about it.

On July 27 2012 10:20 Kluey wrote:


It doesn't deal with hack but it can give unfair advantages to users. You can make invisible units not invisible and more things. It's just more professional and moderated without these colour changes and such.

On July 27 2012 10:23 bakedace wrote:
If the MPQ stops hacks, i'm ALL for it.

On July 27 2012 10:01 trbot wrote:


Ignoring the fact that Blizzard representatives have publicly stated that they support the STC mods, to what "better quality SC2 experience" are you referring? It won't change hacking, and it will eliminate mods that a lot of people like. I don't actually see any improvement...

On July 27 2012 10:10 trbot wrote:


No, it seems like you're missing just about every point. A diebetic's use of insulin is subsidised with taxes taken from your paycheck. So, yes, it does diminish the quality of others' lives. Even if that's not the case where you live, you will have insurance through your work, on a group plan, and the cost to the company of acquiring that group plan will impact everyone's paychecks. If you're not one of the people benefitting most from that plan, you're paying more than you should. Are you going to university? Then your student health insurance is the same thing. How about unemployment insurance? The foster care system? Subsidised babysitting costs? Subsidised farming to prevent imports of home-grown food? Subsidised energy rebates to promote adoption of clean energy sources? You're clearly just against any form of socialism. Grow up.

And what planned improvements will be prevented? You can't tell me any, because there aren't any. As has already been said half a dozen times, locking down MPQ files does nothing to prevent hacking, and the reverse does nothing to prevent Blizzard's "planned improvements."

On July 27 2012 10:27 Dingobloo wrote:
The game is now streamable, you can begin playing it even if it hasn't finished downloading/patching like Diablo and World of Warcraft.
[...]
This is the #1 reason the file verification stuff is now in the game, because of the streaming, it needs to make sure that the core game files are all complete and uncorrupted before it starts up.

On July 27 2012 10:27 Dingobloo wrote:
As you said, it won't change hacking, though it does make some forms of hacking slightly more difficult it's not the intention of the change.

On July 27 2012 10:30 CaptainCharisma wrote:
Taxes do not have to be spent in such ways. That is the choice of the elected officials. If we wanted to, we could ask diabetics to pay for their own insulin., but we don't because we think that is fair. Likewise for other subsidies. Unfortunately for you, Blizzard is not an elected government.

On July 27 2012 10:30 CaptainCharisma wrote:
The existence of subsidies at the government level does not equate to an overarching moral norm that says all disabled people must be subsidized to the level where they can function just as well as able bodied people. If that were the case, why only ramps into buildings? Why not pay for fully functional robotic arms or legs?

We don't do these things because the cost is greater than the benefit.

On July 27 2012 10:20 Lumi wrote:
Charisma, you're not even trying to think this through. Earlier in the thread myself and others pointed out that the entire contents of the MPQ don't need to be checked because things like image files that are only being referenced for their application as a graphic are never going to be subverted into some kind of hack. This is a sloppy axe swing where a scalpel would do just fine, without making liars out of th em, and without alienating your out-of-the-ass quote of "5%" of their games - actually a pretty significant number.

Not to mention that they haven't even stated that anti-hack measures are the reason behind this change. Infact, a few people have chimed in that this wouldn't even stop maphackers - though they haven't elaborated afaik. So will you stop acting sure, or even informed about things that you clearly aren't? You're wasting a lot of peoples times while you try to convince us and yourself that you know what you're talking a bout.

PS just saw that you've been at it while I was writing this, lol. Again out of your ass claiming that colorblind can still play the game to a "decent" (????) level. I'm sure you've got a lot of feedback and data on this.

On July 27 2012 10:22 trbot wrote:


Yes, you can do these things through MPQ files. You can also do them without modifying MPQ files... (Maphacks do this and much more without modifying any game files.) That's why we say this does nothing to stop the proliferation of hacks.

On July 27 2012 10:36 hunts wrote:
meh, it's probably to help stop hacking so I'm for it. I don't use modded UI shit anyway so it's fine by me.

On July 27 2012 09:31 CaptainCharisma wrote:



How about just accepting that you're going to have problems with a game that demands basic skills that you don't have?

User was warned for this post

On July 27 2012 10:31 Forikorder wrote:
Blizzard has made it perfectly clear they do not want people to be modding there files in any way i remember a reddit thread a long time ago talking about how Blizzard warned MC for changing the background

i really dont get the point of this thread, your trying to force blizzard to let you do whatever you want with there game despite them not wanting you to do it, what gives you the right to do this? its like making a petition asking blzizard to let you build a rax before supply depot or letting you smurf as much as you want

your lucky they decided to stop it like this instead of banning people to get the point across

On July 27 2012 10:40 CaptainCharisma wrote:



What about someone who is mentally impaired? Maybe they cannot react very fast to a drop in their base. Should we allow a mod that moves their workers away from their mineral line at a normal reaction time?



Plenty of people have specific, genetic reasons why they are not as good at this game as others. It is a competitive sport. Sport is not an arena where it is generally accepted that the impaired can compete with the non-impaired. Heck, we have separate men's and women's divisions in other sports, why? We have disabled Olympics. Why?

On July 27 2012 10:41 Teliko wrote:

I'd very much like to see that thread. With the amount of people using mods, a statement like that would have brought a lot of discussion. I find it interesting how it was never brought to my attention.

It's nothing like your examples, actually. Rax before depo is a balancing issue. Using smurf accounts brings a negative experience to the less skilled players facing the smurf. I need not state the benefits of Stronger Team Colours. Other mods may not bring benefit to people quite like STC, but for some, actually quite a lot, it makes the game more enjoyable.

Courtesy of capitalism, they are elected by our choice to partake in their services. Commerce always answers to the consumer. I'm not sure why you even made this point.

You admit we do reasonable things that we believe are fair. Does a yellow nuke dot seem like a fully functional robotic arm or leg? It seems to me like a reasonable thing that most people will believe is fair (if you pysicially can't see the red one). It almost seems like the benefit is greater than the cost...

On July 27 2012 10:44 Forikorder wrote:

it was an insanely long time ago (like around the GSL open seasons i think) so i dont think its possible to find it ill look but im pretty terrible at this stuff

Blizzard has made it clear they dont want people modding there files, thats why every thread advertising a mod has a warning saying that using this mod does put you in danger of being banned by Blizzard even though theres been no reports of people being banned for using this mod and using that as an excuse to use it

Blizzard jsut made it impossible to mod, guess you cant say they have no problem with it now :/

On July 27 2012 10:52 CaptainCharisma wrote:


"Commerce always answers to the consumer." I am a consumer. In fact, I'm in the majority, that is, people who don't mod. It looks like you just defeated your own argument. Despite this, there is no constitutional foundation for a corporation. It is not legitimate in the sense that the US is. It does not have to abide by a constitution.



First of all, we don't do -everything- we think is reasonable or fair because sometimes the costs are too high, and for little reward. Do you get that?
And yeah, considering you're colour-blind, I think you may be a little biased as to how you quantify the benefit. Blizzard is the important figure here, not you nor I. There are plenty of other games out there for you, but no, you choose to hold up progress in our game with a petition. Your notion of fairness is clearly skewed in your favour.

On July 27 2012 10:31 trbot wrote:


This is a nice feature. However, this doesn't need MPQ files to be verified on regular game startup. They can just be verified once by the installer (not the game) before the game is loaded for the first time. Hence, this change is totally unnecessary.

On July 27 2012 10:53 Teliko wrote:

Well they never directly said this change had the primary intention of stopping modding, I'm not up to date with the recent or upcoming changes, but someone was stating some change with the patch regarding streaming updates while playing. There's a lot of outcomes for the reason behind this and it could be completely coincidental that it affects modding, but I want to at least try and defend it in the hopes it was merely a coincidence or there's still the possibility of changing their minds once they see just how many people are behind this. We've been sharing mods for well over a year at this stage, if they really want to stop us, they'd have taken a bigger step to prevent it by now. There's nothing wrong with defending what so many people have put so much time into.

On July 27 2012 10:57 Forikorder wrote:

i understand where your coming from, but Blizz has always frowned on this sort of stuff and they never did anything to make it possible so why would they let the modders give the middle finger to the art staff and change it?

On July 27 2012 11:00 Debian wrote:
Why the hell does the partition need my full address?

On July 27 2012 10:56 trbot wrote:


Why are you bringing the U.S. constitution into this? Your lack of basic reasoning skills is really starting to show, and it seems like you're getting desperate. I didn't defeat my argument. I defeated yours. If Blizzard will lose your business by allowing modding, then I've supported your argument.

I'm quantifying the benefit in an objective sense. It costs you nothing, and you grant a boon to 10% of the male population. If you'd like me to elaborate on why it costs you nothing, I can do that. You, however, have offered nothing to suggest there is a cost. Stop making a fool of yourself.

On July 27 2012 08:47 Teliko wrote:

That percentage is still in the hundreds of thousands of people. Reducing their entertainment value for no benefit in return doesn't seem very fair.

On July 27 2012 11:18 Beorning wrote:
I would miss stronger team color quite a bit. I don't really know much about how hackers go about their business, but if this change stops hacking I guess I'd be fine with it. But then again, I'm sure there's a thousand other holes they can climb through.

On July 27 2012 11:18 Anarith wrote:
There was actually an interview on reddit where Browder said he supports the STC mod.

LINK


From the reddit thread:

Has any thought been given to incorporating aspects of the Strong Team Colors mod?

:Browder loves the idea for both the professional scene and everyone else. They're looking at their options and like/support the mod, but don't know if they'll add anything.

EDIT: Youtube interview link

On July 27 2012 11:14 CaptainCharisma wrote:



It's a sign of weakness when half of your posts are telling me how wrong I am instead of showing me how wrong I am.

Your point was that Blizzard is like a government because we chose to purchase their game, right, thereby "electing" it? If this is not your argument you should have explained it better. You then simply say 'commerce answers to the consumer'. This is extremely vague, and all I can say is we are both consumers, who should be heard in favour of the other? I am in the majority of people who don't mod. Why should Blizzard then care about a small minority of people who want to mod if that mod is incompatible with new advances in their coding system for the benefit of the majority?

Why did I mention the US constitution? It was an analogy. You seem to have problems with these so don't read too much into it. When you compared Blizzard to a government, I pointed out governments (whether written or not) have constitutions which they must abide by. Blizzard has no such restriction.

And yes, please explain how it costs me nothing. Blizzard appears to have spent time and effort on a new coding system for my, the consumer's, benefit. This petition seeks to restrict that benefit. You can quibble over 'forgone benefit does not equal a cost', but any reasonable person can see there is a detriment there. Before these mods came out, you were unable to see red dots on the screen. That position changed with the mods, but may revert One could say that overall, you did not suffer any costs. I would disagree however. The same applies to the forgone benefit this petition would create.

Why would Blizzard care about a very large percentage of its customer base?

On July 27 2012 11:29 Forikorder wrote:


when has blizzard ever let a decision be left up to majority vote?

Blzizard does waht it wants done if people like it good if they dont too bad

On July 27 2012 11:30 trbot wrote:


A defeatist attitude doesn't do much to help here.

On July 27 2012 11:32 Forikorder wrote:

you can only suffer defeat if you were in a battle

since theres no way to actually influence Blizzards opinion at all we can neither win nor lose we can only accept what blizzard plans to do and get on with our lives, not that our lives will be any different because of a minor change

On July 27 2012 11:36 trbot wrote:


In the last few patch notes released by Blizzard (and at every Blizzcon and interview), they've made a point of explicitly telling us that they are listening in the usual channels for player comments. It's fairly obvious that they are trying to maintain their image as a company that cares about its players. I don't see a solid reason for this cynicism. It's not like Blizzard will blindly give up and stop giving a hoot about their customer base.

On July 27 2012 11:34 willoc wrote:
These mods are not worth the security risks and integrity risks of SC2. Are there hacks out there that use them? Probably. Will it stop hacks? No. Will it make certain hacks more difficult to use/implement. Yes. Will it abolish the disadvantage that some mods give (like the stronger color mod) against people who don't use mods. Yes. (I know what you're saying, I should use a mod too. But that would force everyone to use the mod no?)

Sorry to say, but I am for them not allowing MPQ modding.

On July 27 2012 11:36 trbot wrote:


In the last few patch notes released by Blizzard (and at every Blizzcon and interview), they've made a point of explicitly telling us that they are listening in the usual channels for player comments. It's fairly obvious that they are trying to maintain their image as a company that cares about its players. I don't see a solid reason for this cynicism. It's not like Blizzard will blindly give up and stop giving a hoot about their customer base.

On July 27 2012 11:42 Forikorder wrote:

while they do listen to the palyer base thats just so they know what problems people are having and get an idea on what to improve (like map pool)

even if the entire community whines about something in a match up there not going to change it if they dont think its neccesary (like the 1/1/1 for instance, as far as i know they never nerfed it despite every toss on the planet whining it was unstoppable)

wining gets people no where, pointing out facts using evidence does

so if youd like to use facts and evidence to offer a very good reason why the mods are neccesary for SC2 to survive then you might get Blizz's attention

On July 27 2012 11:27 trbot wrote:


It's not a sign of weakness, it's a sign of frustration. For lack of a kinder way to say this, it's hard arguing with someone who poses such weak and chaotic arguments. You lack focus. Among other things, this tells me that you're young.

Why would Blizzard care about a large percentage of its customer base? Is that seriously your question? Even if you believe (for no reason whatsoever) that 90% of people don't mod, you can't even discount the 10% of colourblind players. Last time I checked, a 10% drop in a company's value can trigger a panic. I don't think you're seriously going to argue that Blizzard doesn't care about 10% of its revenue.

The fact that you say "coding system" tells me that you know nothing about programming. I, however, am finishing a masters in theoretical computer science, already having bachelors' in computer science and pure mathematics. I can tell you with 100% certainty that the inability to make this change (i.e., were this petition to see success) will have 0% impact on their ability to make progress.

I have problems with your analogies because they're irrelevant. Blizzard is bound by its shareholders and its bottom line. It doesn't need a moral compass or a constitutional obligation. If a large fraction of its user base is annoyed by its decisions, it will fail. Even if I accept your premise that you're in the majority, I've already argued that even 10% (already accounted for by my colourblind kin) is too much to discount.

As for the issue of cost, I've already argued that progress will not be halted or even substantially stalled at the cost of fine-tuning the MPQ file check (e.g., to compute an MD5 signature on part of the file, rather than the whole file, or by computing it only during installation, as opposed to on every startup--a feat that would be prohibitively computationally expensive, by the way). I've also argued that the only touted benefit to this MPQ file validation is a hoax, since hackers will easily be able to continue with or without the ability to modify MPQ files. If you still disagree with these points, I find it hard to believe you're arguing from a position where you understand what you're saying.

On July 27 2012 12:03 Ralethon wrote:
I have a few questions before i decide where i stand on this issue.

1. Would it be possible to use these sorts of mod to enhance the shimmer of an invisible unit to make it more visible? Or to make the dust particles from a burrow moving unit luminous or otherwise more noticeble?

2. What is it about the patch that prevents these mods form being allowed/working and could there be an alternitve was to achieve the same mod results? Do the MPQ achives contain textures and meshes?

3. Has Blizzard stated that the changes are designed to target this type of modding?

Im aware that hackers will always find a way to bypass security; what im curious about is the reasoning or technical reason for this change. I also understand that these mods provide enjoyment to a great many people.

On July 27 2012 11:56 CaptainCharisma wrote:
Same thing right back at you. You don't address the major points in my arguments with logic. Now that I know you are a comp sci guy, it now becomes clear why you have such a hard time with arguments about "fairness" and government responsibilities vs corporate. It is clearly not your area of expertise. Believe me, I find responding to your posts as frustrating as you do mine.

On July 27 2012 11:56 CaptainCharisma wrote:
You are right in that I have no idea about what these changes are doing at the programming level. It may be a complete waste of time for all I know. However, I am assuming Blizzard is making the change because it has at least some sort of benefit, whether or not people know what that is yet, or are wrong about it. I am assuming the people who work at Blizzard have qualifications similar if not better (most likely) than yours. I find it likely that Blizzard has some sort of rational basis for its decisions. My arguments draw on this logic.

On July 27 2012 11:56 CaptainCharisma wrote:
You said " It seems to me like a reasonable thing that most people will believe is fair (if you pysicially can't see the red one). It almost seems like the benefit is greater than the cost.."

Now you say " Blizzard is bound by its shareholders and its bottom line. It doesn't need a moral compass or a constitutional obligation. If a large fraction of its user base is annoyed by its decisions, it will fail. Even if I accept your premise that you're in the majority, I've already argued that even 10% (already accounted for by my colourblind kin) is too much to discount."

Why are you making arguments about fairness when you acknowledge that Blizzard is only bound by its shareholders and its bottom line. Recognizing you have failed on the fairness front (because as you said, Blizzard doesn't need a moral compass - I'm glad you agree with me on that), you seem to claim that the, let's say 10% of people who use mods (a very high estimate considering the amount of casual players who have probably never even heard of TL) being disgruntled is enough, from a profit perspective, for Blizzard to revert these changes. Well guess what, Blizzard wants to go ahead with the changes. They've probably crunched the numbers and disagree with you.

So, which line do you want to take? The only avenue you seem to have left open is that these changes affect nothing other than stopping mods, which I could not verify. My question then is, why has Blizzard invested time money and effort into making them.

On July 27 2012 08:37 Tppz! wrote:
I do not agree at all. Its ok to loose those things if it gives Blizzard a chance to hunt cheaters/hackers etc.
Also mpq modding isnt allowed by Blizz ToS

On July 27 2012 12:31 Caltu wrote:
I personally think this is the correct move by Blizzard.

Any form of moding that can have affect on your game in any sense is a bad road to leave open.

My main example is World Of Warcraft
WoW has had 3rd party content forever, and its affected the game in both development and playability. The developers have had to make content around the mods. "Deadly boss mods" alerts the player to incoming abilities and other effects that they need to respond to. Blizzard have had to make encounters exponentially more difficult over the years to counteract the modding.

Any form of modding I think needs to be stopped.
Where would it stop if all content producers knew of this? Warning lights for common timings of pushes ect?
Personally I think this is a good road to go down for Blizzard [Even tho Dark Protoss Is bloody cool]

On July 27 2012 08:36 Blazinghand wrote:
This would be more successful as a thread on the battle.net forums.

On July 27 2012 12:27 trbot wrote:

I've actually been careful to address every point you made, so I'm not sure what you're complaining about. No one has yet expressed a problem with my arguments.

On July 27 2012 12:27 trbot wrote:
However, half a dozen people have expressed that you appear to have no idea what you're talking about, that you're making incoherent arguments, and so on.

On July 27 2012 09:39 CaptainCharisma wrote:


Where did I say he cannot participate?

On July 27 2012 12:27 trbot wrote:
Arguing that I don't respond logically is just silly, since high level theory has drilled nothing into me more strongly than pure, unabated logic and reason. When was the last time you wrote a 50 page mathematical proof? I finished one last December, and I'm writing another right now. Something tells me that you're in the minority, having trouble grasping my points. On a side-note, I have a fairly good understanding of the corporate world and government (having worked at several fortune500 companies, and having studied economics, ethics in government and professional practice alongside CS at one of the world's top 10 schools for CS), so I wouldn't toss those claims around arbitrarily.

There's a fundamental difference between my frustration and yours. I understand what I'm talking about, and you're waxing sophistic from ignorance, playing the devil's advocate in an e-penis measuring contest with no end.

On July 27 2012 11:56 CaptainCharisma wrote:
You are right in that I have no idea about what these changes are doing at the programming level. It may be a complete waste of time for all I know. However, I am assuming Blizzard is making the change because it has at least some sort of benefit, whether or not people know what that is yet, or are wrong about it. I am assuming the people who work at Blizzard have qualifications similar if not better (most likely) than yours. I find it likely that Blizzard has some sort of rational basis for its decisions. My arguments draw on this logic.

On July 27 2012 12:27 trbot wrote:
You're making an appeal to authority, and it makes no sense. That's not logic. It's actually a classical logical fallacy. Google it. It presupposes that experience will lead Blizzard to make the right decision. You fail to understand how trivial a change this is, and it has turned your argument into mush. Some programmer was working on the installer after his boss said "we want to allow users to play SC2 faster while they're installing, just like we do for Diablo 3," and while figuring out how he could make it happen, he had to make a few dozen mundane decisions. That he would run some MD5 hash on each MPQ file to verify that it had downloaded properly before running the game was one of those mundane decisions. Implementing this hash checking took him 1 hour. Implementing it a different way that wouldn't prevent modding would take him a similar amount of time. (He's a smart guy.) I've already mentioned alternative methods of accomplishing this programmer's goal in a previous post. You're making a strategic mountain out of a trivial decision with simple alternatives.

On July 27 2012 11:56 CaptainCharisma wrote:
You said " It seems to me like a reasonable thing that most people will believe is fair (if you pysicially can't see the red one). It almost seems like the benefit is greater than the cost.."

Now you say " Blizzard is bound by its shareholders and its bottom line. It doesn't need a moral compass or a constitutional obligation. If a large fraction of its user base is annoyed by its decisions, it will fail. Even if I accept your premise that you're in the majority, I've already argued that even 10% (already accounted for by my colourblind kin) is too much to discount."

Why are you making arguments about fairness when you acknowledge that Blizzard is only bound by its shareholders and its bottom line. Recognizing you have failed on the fairness front (because as you said, Blizzard doesn't need a moral compass - I'm glad you agree with me on that), you seem to claim that the, let's say 10% of people who use mods (a very high estimate considering the amount of casual players who have probably never even heard of TL) being disgruntled is enough, from a profit perspective, for Blizzard to revert these changes. Well guess what, Blizzard wants to go ahead with the changes. They've probably crunched the numbers and disagree with you.

So, which line do you want to take? The only avenue you seem to have left open is that these changes affect nothing other than stopping mods, which I could not verify. My question then is, why has Blizzard invested time money and effort into making them.

On July 27 2012 12:27 trbot wrote:
I responded in terms of fairness because you invoked fairness. (I like to speak in terms people understand most easily. If you speak in terms of fairness, it seems a fair bet that you want a response that explains how some other alternative is equally fair.)

On July 27 2012 12:27 trbot wrote:
There are valid arguments to be made in favour of accommodating red-green colourblindness whether you come at it from the perspective of morality and social obligation, or from a monetarily driven capitalism. If I were to choose my own path, it would be the latter. In the long run, if Blizzard fails to respond to the desires of its customer base, it will fail.

On July 27 2012 12:27 trbot wrote:
You say 10% is a high estimate, but I feel like it's probably higher. Until someone makes an argument that is backed with statistics (unlikely), there's no point in arguing this. This thread in our argument leads to a dead end, since we differ in our opinions. I believe mods are common, and that more noise is to come from, e.g., colourblind folks, if Blizzard nixes mods and doesn't provide a legitimate alternative to STC.

On July 27 2012 12:27 trbot wrote:
Yet again, you appeal to authority, and the argument is ridiculous. You're saying "Blizzard has probably thought of everything, and every decision their programmers and designers make is well thought out." It's frustrating to try to explain to a non computer scientist how these kinds of accidental consequences can, and do, occur every day when programmers work on a large project. Suffice it to say that it's much more likely that this is an unintended consequence of a new development in their installer which has several simple alternatives that do not have the effect of nullifying mods.

On July 27 2012 13:51 CaptainCharisma wrote:
This is cute coming from someone who has done nothing but state his qualifications as if to speak from a position of authority. I'll address the rest of this segment along with my response below.

On July 27 2012 13:51 CaptainCharisma wrote:
It would make more sense to pull me up right there and say "it has nothing to do with fairness - Blizzard will lose customers over this which means they should want to revert the changes", but you didn't. You went along those lines for a while and decided to change your point of attack.

On July 27 2012 13:51 CaptainCharisma wrote:


Herein lies your biggest inconsistency. Please pay attention. Your arguments for fairness necessarily entailed that Blizzard was not simply a money hungry machine - otherwise, why would it care about your fairness arguments? However, you now say your path is "the latter" - that Blizzard is just another subject of "monetarily driven capitalism", so presumably, you do not think these arguments hold any water in the real-world. Instead, you seem to think Blizzard should revert the changes because it will lose profits from the 10 or more %. If you believe this is the case, and that Blizzard is a money driven machine, what are you worried about? What is this petition for? They will allow modding for the sake of their own profits.

On July 27 2012 13:51 CaptainCharisma wrote:
I touched on this above and I'll bring it up again here. I'll accept for argument's sake that what you say is correct, and say these changes were mundane and accidental. Thus, I'm not asserting Blizzard's goal was to prevent modding by doing this. It may have been, as you put forward, an attempt to speed up downloading time as in Diablo 3. So now we have a situation where you believe the changes can easily be reverted in 1 hour, and reinstated in such a way as to allow modding. So what? Perhaps you're right and the cost of allowing modding is very low; all this does is add weight to the idea that Blizzard doesn't want to change it for some reason other than it being too expensive.

On July 27 2012 14:26 CaptainCharisma wrote:
Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it pseudo-intellectual.

..MPQ modding causes no harm to SC2..

It's clear a change like this wouldn't affect negative aspects to the game such as maphacking, so there's really no reason to shut this down. Many players continue playing the game simply on the basis of knowing they can freely make it look however they want.

On July 27 2012 14:57 XenoX101 wrote:
You haven't addressed any of the potential for exploits. One could easily for instance make hard to see units more visible (ghosts, dark templars, observers), or make certain sounds such as the dark templar swipe much louder. You can't just say..



And provide no evidence for it, or no counter argument to the obvious examples mentioned above. If you want your petition to be taken seriously you need to put a bit more thought into the opposition's case, and give them reasons why they would change their minds, and I don't think having pretty things is as much of their concern as the potential for exploits.

On July 27 2012 08:46 Dyme wrote:
I think it's most fair if everyone has the same models and colours. Customization is bad for fair competition imo. I hated WoW PvP most for the amount of retarded add-ons you had to have to be maximum efficient.

It's probably bad for people who have difficulties seeing colours (assuming stronger team colours help them at all), but then Blizz should make a universal official colour blind version, that is easily accessable and the same for everyone.

Yeah, and changing background picture... I don't care about at all.

edit: Would it be possible to use MPQ editing to make invisible units stand out more? If that's possible, all the more reason forbid it.

On July 27 2012 15:19 Marti wrote:


Ever played Quake live ? Or CPMA for that matter ? Or even CS PROMOD ? All those games have far more customization options than SC2.. Hell in QL you can change your Field Of View ! That's right ! You can change how much you see from left to right, and it's the greatest competitive FAST FPS to ever exist. Even stermy has a custom hud.
Also you can see already see invisible units to an extent, which is far more retarded than brighter colours. It should be either : you can see invisible units but your units can't without detection OR you can't see invisible units and your units can't without detection.
Terribad argument. More customization gives more options, creates better gameplay experience

On July 27 2012 12:31 Caltu wrote:
I personally think this is the correct move by Blizzard.

Any form of moding that can have affect on your game in any sense is a bad road to leave open.

My main example is World Of Warcraft
WoW has had 3rd party content forever, and its affected the game in both development and playability. The developers have had to make content around the mods. "Deadly boss mods" alerts the player to incoming abilities and other effects that they need to respond to. Blizzard have had to make encounters exponentially more difficult over the years to counteract the modding.

Any form of modding I think needs to be stopped.
Where would it stop if all content producers knew of this? Warning lights for common timings of pushes ect?
Personally I think this is a good road to go down for Blizzard [Even tho Dark Protoss Is bloody cool]

On July 27 2012 15:43 PacGamer wrote:

Addons in WoW != Modding -- Addons in WoW are comparable to the Editor in Starcraft since there is a full API for both that Blizzard watches closely and shuts things down if it goes too far

Modding in WoW is pretty the same thing as SC2-- Custom login screen and music Custom armor reskins Player model and skin edits Custom mount textures Full retextures of world zones

None were actually malicious or broke a part of the game.

On July 27 2012 15:48 RPR_Tempest wrote:
The colour mod is fucking awful, so I hope Blizzard's proposed changes stick.

On July 27 2012 15:32 rename wrote:
Please,

Aside from team colour mod, claiming those things add to gameplay experience is like saying writing "ace racer driver" with flamey text on your car door adds to driving experience.

Good job on making me not care by attempting to make this sound more important than it is.

On July 27 2012 15:32 rename wrote:
Please,

Aside from team colour mod, claiming those things add to gameplay experience is like saying writing "ace racer driver" with flamey text on your car door adds to driving experience.

Good job on making me not care by attempting to make this sound more important than it is.

On July 27 2012 15:09 Existor wrote:
Teliko

Please, delete information about UI changing. It's just overlay program that not iteracts with game client. It only adds image over all windows and can work on ANY windowed game.

But the 2nd part of that tophread about UI editing is about moq editing, but it's not nessecary.

On July 27 2012 16:06 Teliko wrote:

Fair enough, HuD link removed.

On July 27 2012 08:40 BoggieMan wrote:
if this is whats needed to stop people using hacks, i don't have an issue with mods flying out the window with it.

On July 27 2012 16:13 Shirin wrote:

While you are at it, you could add a poll to the main post, id like to see the ratio of who supports and whos against it.

On July 27 2012 16:19 Plexa wrote:
Without knowing Blizzards future plans, I can't say that this is necessarily a bad move.

Maybe in HOTS they will be monetizing mods? Would that be necessarily a bad move?

On July 27 2012 16:15 Nabes wrote:
The only mod worth having a petition for was stronger team colors and even that gives an unfair advantage over players that don't have it. Code S players play the game without it, so can you.

On July 27 2012 17:07 metaStatic wrote:
never understood how blizzard could support colour mod despite modding being against the TOS
not to mention it is essentially hacking because it gives an unfair advantage to the person with the mod

On July 27 2012 17:07 metaStatic wrote:
never understood how blizzard could support colour mod despite modding being against the TOS
not to mention it is essentially hacking because it gives an unfair advantage to the person with the mod

On July 27 2012 17:07 metaStatic wrote:
never understood how blizzard could support colour mod despite modding being against the TOS
not to mention it is essentially hacking because it gives an unfair advantage to the person with the mod

On July 27 2012 16:19 Plexa wrote:
Without knowing Blizzards future plans, I can't say that this is necessarily a bad move.

Maybe in HOTS they will be monetizing mods? Would that be necessarily a bad move?

On July 27 2012 17:14 Teliko wrote:

Interested to know why you think the colour mod would give a player an advantage over others. Assuming you're not colour blind, do you genuinely have trouble differentiating between which units are yours and your enemies?

On July 27 2012 17:42 Probe1 wrote:


I know it wasn't directed at me but in zvz, yeah, it's happened before.