|
Honestly I havent read all the threads about SC2, but I have an idea that I think will stop many speculations. What do you think if there are two game mods in SC2. One will be the normal gameplay where you can select multiple buildings,autocas select as many units as possible, workers automaticly go to harvest etc... And the other mode ,lets call it "pro" mode, where basicly u cant do all these things,but the control is like in SC1. The "pro" mode can be used in the Korea tournaments, WCG and so on. I hope you get my idea.
|
i really doubt it... when u play on bnet or online tournament there will a lot of cheaters who actually will be playing "noob" mode....
|
It should be relatively easy for battle.net to check what mode people are playing in...
I don't really mind this suggestion, would mean I wouldn't get affected at all by the people that want the game to be a button masher.
|
On May 22 2007 02:53 Zironic wrote: It should be relatively easy for battle.net to check what mode people are playing in...
i'm just saying it's another option for hackers:D addition to maphack, drophack, etc....
|
Would become apparent instantly if the enemy suddenly moved his whole army at the same time. Even if you're the god of micro you can't do that without unlimited selection.
Maphack is bothersome to counter since it's a local exploit but things like controls can't be hacked since the commands have to be sent to the host and if that command is something that you're not allowed to do, well, then you're cheating.
|
nah, that would just be another way of splitting the community. i don't think even hardcore gamers will want the artificial restrictions after they get used to it, assuming sc2 is challenging/fast enough that you always are busy doing something.
|
On May 22 2007 03:01 Zironic wrote: Would become apparent instantly if the enemy suddenly moved his whole army at the same time. Even if you're the god of micro you can't do that without unlimited selection.
Maphack is bothersome to counter since it's a local exploit but things like controls can't be hacked since the commands have to be sent to the host and if that command is something that you're not allowed to do, well, then you're cheating.
You are so ignorant.
There are already 2 different hacks on SC that can either make you select more then 12 units (or whatever the limit is) and the other issues a command to whatever type of unit you want e.g. tell 1 marine to attack+move, they all will.
So I don't see what this "commands have to be sent to host" stuff is from when talking about commands.
|
On May 22 2007 03:23 TopGear wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2007 03:01 Zironic wrote: Would become apparent instantly if the enemy suddenly moved his whole army at the same time. Even if you're the god of micro you can't do that without unlimited selection.
Maphack is bothersome to counter since it's a local exploit but things like controls can't be hacked since the commands have to be sent to the host and if that command is something that you're not allowed to do, well, then you're cheating. You are so ignorant. There are already 2 different hacks on SC that can either make you select more then 12 units (or whatever the limit is) and the other issues a command to whatever type of unit you want e.g. tell 1 marine to attack+move, they all will. So I don't see what this "commands have to be sent to host" stuff is from when talking about commands.
So what exactly about the possibilty of creating those hacks make them impossible to stop?
If you think for atleast 3 seconds on how the infrastructure of Starcraft is build up you'll see why it's so easy to stop.
Starcraft and Warcraft are hosted games, quite like Counter Strike. This means that the players that arn't the host are just sending their commands over to the host and the host tells the other players what happens.
Now this means that if a player that isn't the host sends a command to the host that shouldn't be possible (for example an attack order for 20 zerglings when you only can select 12) that obviously means he is using a hack. Easy to find, easy to automaticly ban/kick/whatever.
Even if by chance the hack couldn't be dedected automaticly (unlikely) it would be so painfully obvious on a replay that you could just send it in to the blizzard hacks department and they would ban the account for you.
What exactly makes me ignorant?
|
United States7166 Posts
Blizzard would never implement an idea like this so there's no point in discussing it
|
On May 22 2007 03:41 Raist wrote: Blizzard would never implement an idea like this so there's no point in discussing it
Probably, but any discussion keeps boredom away :=), it would be a fairly interesting idea to stop all the hardcore people whining.
|
we've got a whole year minimum of keeping boredom away:D i'm just glad blizzard didn't announce SC2 4 years ago....
|
On May 22 2007 03:49 lamarine wrote: we've got a whole year minimum of keeping boredom away:D i'm just glad blizzard didn't announce SC2 4 years ago....
The wait would have killed me by now
|
and other couple of millions of fans:D
|
Zironic, you're wrong. Starcraft and Warcraft are p2p games. Host is only needed when creating the game on the server. If your assumption was true, a starcraft game would end as soon as the creator leaves it, which does not happen, unlike Counterstrike. The fact that it's p2p also makes hacking possible, since there is no 'master server' which receives commands and checks for anomalies.
|
Also, it is easy to emulate unlimited selection through repeating identical commands with limited selection. If I really wanted to hack I could make it so that DA's autocast feedback on visible enemy queens and defilers within range or some such on my end, and it would look perfectly legitimate to the game server even if it's sitting on another computer. It's exactly the same idea like autoaiming bots for FPS games.
As for the separate UI, I'm all for that.
In fact if I designed an RTS I would make the UI operate over a scripting language that directs the player's control of each individual unit or building and allows querying the gamestate for information. The game's AI can written in such a way its input/output is implemented over the same language, and in fact, it could give rise to 3rd party AI/UI hybrids that are far more advanced than anything seen on the RTS market today. It would be like playing chess with the help of a chess program, only a lot cooler because RTS is much more open-ended than chess.
But don't get me wrong, I certainly DON'T think SC2 should go anywhere near these levels of automation...
|
On May 22 2007 03:53 chiflutz wrote: Zironic, you're wrong. Starcraft and Warcraft are p2p games. Host is only needed when creating the game on the server. If your assumption was true, a starcraft game would end as soon as the creator leaves it, which does not happen, unlike Counterstrike. The fact that it's p2p also makes hacking possible, since there is no 'master server' which receives commands and checks for anomalies.
Warcraft 3 games have a high tendency to collapse when the host leaves.
For Warcraft III, Blizzard is using a modification of the synchronous peer-to-peer architecture called "hosted peer-to-peer", in which messages from one player to another are bounced off one of Blizzard's servers rather than being sent directly between computers. This change doesn't impact cheating, but it does prevent players from seeing each other's IP address, which eliminates the privacy problem.
I think this means that for non ladder games all players are sending their commands to the host that sends them back to everyone else.
So I was slightly wrong since Starcraft is pure peer-to-peer while Warcraft 3 isn't. While it isn't purely hosted like Counter Strike Warcraft 3 still needs a host. I suspect that Starcraft 2 will use a similar system.
On May 22 2007 04:51 EmS.Radagast wrote: Also, it is easy to emulate unlimited selection through repeating identical commands with limited selection. If I really wanted to hack I could make it so that DA's autocast feedback on visible enemy queens and defilers within range or some such on my end, and it would look perfectly legitimate to the game server even if it's sitting on another computer. It's exactly the same idea like autoaiming bots for FPS games.
As for the separate UI, I'm all for that.
In fact if I designed an RTS I would make the UI operate over a scripting language that directs the player's control of each individual unit or building and allows querying the gamestate for information. The game's AI can written in such a way its input/output is implemented over the same language, and in fact, it could give rise to 3rd AI/UI hybrids that are far more advanced than anything seen on the RTS market today. It would be like playing chess with the help of a chess program, only a lot cooler because RTS is much more open-ended than chess.
But don't get me wrong, I certainly DON'T think SC2 should go anywhere near these levels of automation...
Indeed such an UI would be awesome, you would have to use some kind of standardised UI for ladder play though to ensure it's fair.
What I think would be really cool is an AI only ladder, programmers can design their own AI's and duke it out against each other :=)
|
I didn't mean to sound rude, Zironic. But you saying that "controls cannot be hacked" is just plain bullshit.
|
|
|
|