Website Feedback
Closed Threads
IRC Chat
irc.quakenet.org #teamliquid
IRC Web ClientTeamSpeak 3 (92 users) | |
|
| Kaitokid Germany. May 29 2012 23:03. Posts 1322 | Profile Blog # |
On May 29 2012 22:56 Skullflower wrote:There have been rumors of Nerchio maphacking before
thats just bullshit as Nerchio performs pretty well in offline tournaments.. he doesn't enter many tournaments but he played well in the tournaments he's played in. |
|
|
| Wroshe Netherlands. May 29 2012 23:04. Posts 1019 | Profile # |
You'd kind of wish these guys to get shot in the head. As that's not realistic a ban will have to do.
On May 29 2012 22:56 Skullflower wrote:There have been rumors of Nerchio maphacking before
There are also rumors that I play on Code S level but keep declining the seed. Is there any truth to base the rumors on though or is it pure bullshit?Last edit: 2012-05-29 23:05:18 |
| |
|
| Kaitokid Germany. May 29 2012 23:12. Posts 1322 | Profile Blog # |
I just read all posts of "zergthrowaway" in this reddit post
http://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/u9n77/psa_if_you_suspect_someone_is_maphacking_please/
Anyone who actually believes what he's saying is simply ignorant. He says he is "realistically a low GM or high masters" but at the same time he says he won half of his prize money (over $1000 with just online tournaments) without maphacking. It is simply impossible as a low GM or high masters to win this amount of money without maphacking as he claims. Even small cups with little prizemoney are full of established good progamers and Koreans. You might beat one or two as a low GM player but its impossible to consistenly win those cups when you are not extremely good.
just a retard seeking for attentionLast edit: 2012-05-29 23:13:54 |
|
|
| prplhz Denmark. May 29 2012 23:12. Posts 3928 | Profile Blog # |
I guess Blizzard can't legally put it in the EULA that they can take away your right to play a game that you legally bought from them.
Private servers would solve this problem. There could be a battle net (like Brood War USEast) where people can hack freely, and then there could be private servers (like ICCup or Fish) where people will get banned for hacking. If Blizzard wants to have some control then they just need make servers licenced or whatever. This would remove any legal problems Blizzard could face from reserving the right to banning people from multiplayer. But I just don't know if the technology is there yet. |
| | Please don't hurt me... |  |
|
|
| KeeN Canada. May 29 2012 23:17. Posts 82 | Profile # | |
| |
|
| diddLY United States. May 29 2012 23:18. Posts 213 | Profile # |
On May 29 2012 23:12 prplhz wrote:
I guess Blizzard can't legally put it in the EULA that they can take away your right to play a game that you legally bought from them.
Not like I've read it, but if it's anything like how WoW works, the account is Blizzards regardless of what you paid. Last edit: 2012-05-29 23:18:56 |
| |
|
| Gheed United States. May 29 2012 23:18. Posts 962 | Profile Blog # |
My greatest concern for being forced to use the blizzard ladder was always what would happen after the expansions were released and Blizzard stopped paying as much attention to the game. The WC3 ladder turned to shit because of all kinds of hacks. Blizzard ban waves were few and far between and as the game aged it became cheaper and cheaper to purchase a new copy, so people could hack with relative impunity. There were always players that everyone just kind of acknowledged "yeah, that guy hacks."
That apparently this has already started while Blizzard is still actively supporting SC2 is pretty damned depressing. |
| |
|
| Shiori May 29 2012 23:18. Posts 2817 | Profile Blog # |
On May 29 2012 23:12 prplhz wrote:
I guess Blizzard can't legally put it in the EULA that they can take away your right to play a game that you legally bought from them.
Private servers would solve this problem. There could be a battle net (like Brood War USEast) where people can hack freely, and then there could be private servers (like ICCup or Fish) where people will get banned for hacking. If Blizzard wants to have some control then they just need make servers licenced or whatever. This would remove any legal problems Blizzard could face from reserving the right to banning people from multiplayer. But I just don't know if the technology is there yet.
This is probably the one time that the notion that players buy a 'license to play' rather than the actual game is helpful. Regrettably, Blizzard only seems to exercise that definition to secure profit rather than clean up the game. |
|
|
| Wroshe Netherlands. May 29 2012 23:19. Posts 1019 | Profile # |
On May 29 2012 23:12 Kaitokid wrote:I just read all posts of "zergthrowaway" in this reddit post http://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/u9n77/psa_if_you_suspect_someone_is_maphacking_please/Anyone who actually believes what he's saying is simply ignorant. He says he is "realistically a low GM or high masters" but at the same time he says he won half of his prize money (over $1000 with just online tournaments) without maphacking. It is simply impossible as a low GM or high masters to win this amount of money without maphacking as he claims. Even small cups with little prizemoney are full of established good progamers and Koreans. You might beat one or two as a low GM player but its impossible to consistenly win those cups when you are not extremely good. just a retard seeking for attention
Yeah, upon reading his shit it looks very unlikely that the post is actually genuine.
More likely is that it's a butthurt fan of another Zerg player (first guess: IdrA, he simply has the most fans) that once lost to Nerchio and now wants to start a Destiny/Orb like witch hunt. |
| |
|
| Holytornados United States. May 29 2012 23:20. Posts 624 | Profile # |
On May 29 2012 23:12 prplhz wrote:
I guess Blizzard can't legally put it in the EULA that they can take away your right to play a game that you legally bought from them.
Private servers would solve this problem. There could be a battle net (like Brood War USEast) where people can hack freely, and then there could be private servers (like ICCup or Fish) where people will get banned for hacking. If Blizzard wants to have some control then they just need make servers licenced or whatever. This would remove any legal problems Blizzard could face from reserving the right to banning people from multiplayer. But I just don't know if the technology is there yet.
Blizzard can definitely ban whoever they want, for what they want.
On May 29 2012 23:19 Wroshe wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 29 2012 23:12 Kaitokid wrote:I just read all posts of "zergthrowaway" in this reddit post http://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/u9n77/psa_if_you_suspect_someone_is_maphacking_please/Anyone who actually believes what he's saying is simply ignorant. He says he is "realistically a low GM or high masters" but at the same time he says he won half of his prize money (over $1000 with just online tournaments) without maphacking. It is simply impossible as a low GM or high masters to win this amount of money without maphacking as he claims. Even small cups with little prizemoney are full of established good progamers and Koreans. You might beat one or two as a low GM player but its impossible to consistenly win those cups when you are not extremely good. just a retard seeking for attention
Yeah, upon reading his shit it looks very unlikely that the post is actually genuine. More likely is that it's a butthurt fan of another Zerg player (first guess: IdrA, he simply has the most fans) that once lost to Nerchio and now wants to start a Destiny/Orb like witch hunt.
While your speculation may be true, you shouldn't throw people like Idra under the bus for no reason with no proof.Last edit: 2012-05-29 23:22:18 |
| | I need your love like a boy needs his mother's side. |  |
|
|
| Wroshe Netherlands. May 29 2012 23:21. Posts 1019 | Profile # |
On May 29 2012 23:20 Holytornados wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 29 2012 23:12 prplhz wrote:
I guess Blizzard can't legally put it in the EULA that they can take away your right to play a game that you legally bought from them.
Private servers would solve this problem. There could be a battle net (like Brood War USEast) where people can hack freely, and then there could be private servers (like ICCup or Fish) where people will get banned for hacking. If Blizzard wants to have some control then they just need make servers licenced or whatever. This would remove any legal problems Blizzard could face from reserving the right to banning people from multiplayer. But I just don't know if the technology is there yet.
Blizzard can definitely ban whoever they want, for what they want.
Exactly. The EULA's are normally worded in such a way that they can even claim ownership of the unborn child your girlfriend is carrying, provided you met her through SCII (or a barcraft that streamed SCII).  |
| |
|
| Holytornados United States. May 29 2012 23:23. Posts 624 | Profile # |
On May 29 2012 23:21 Wroshe wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 29 2012 23:20 Holytornados wrote:
On May 29 2012 23:12 prplhz wrote:
I guess Blizzard can't legally put it in the EULA that they can take away your right to play a game that you legally bought from them.
Private servers would solve this problem. There could be a battle net (like Brood War USEast) where people can hack freely, and then there could be private servers (like ICCup or Fish) where people will get banned for hacking. If Blizzard wants to have some control then they just need make servers licenced or whatever. This would remove any legal problems Blizzard could face from reserving the right to banning people from multiplayer. But I just don't know if the technology is there yet.
Blizzard can definitely ban whoever they want, for what they want.
Exactly. The EULA's are normally worded in such a way that they can even claim ownership of the unborn child your girlfriend is carrying, provided you met her through SCII (or a barcraft that streamed SCII).
Yeah, you don't own the account, I believe the EULA gives you a license to run the account that Blizzard owns, or something legally similar to this. |
| | I need your love like a boy needs his mother's side. | |
|
|
| Wroshe Netherlands. May 29 2012 23:46. Posts 1019 | Profile # |
On May 29 2012 23:20 Holytornados wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 29 2012 23:12 prplhz wrote:
I guess Blizzard can't legally put it in the EULA that they can take away your right to play a game that you legally bought from them.
Private servers would solve this problem. There could be a battle net (like Brood War USEast) where people can hack freely, and then there could be private servers (like ICCup or Fish) where people will get banned for hacking. If Blizzard wants to have some control then they just need make servers licenced or whatever. This would remove any legal problems Blizzard could face from reserving the right to banning people from multiplayer. But I just don't know if the technology is there yet.
Blizzard can definitely ban whoever they want, for what they want.
Show nested quote +On May 29 2012 23:19 Wroshe wrote:
On May 29 2012 23:12 Kaitokid wrote:I just read all posts of "zergthrowaway" in this reddit post http://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/u9n77/psa_if_you_suspect_someone_is_maphacking_please/Anyone who actually believes what he's saying is simply ignorant. He says he is "realistically a low GM or high masters" but at the same time he says he won half of his prize money (over $1000 with just online tournaments) without maphacking. It is simply impossible as a low GM or high masters to win this amount of money without maphacking as he claims. Even small cups with little prizemoney are full of established good progamers and Koreans. You might beat one or two as a low GM player but its impossible to consistenly win those cups when you are not extremely good. just a retard seeking for attention
Yeah, upon reading his shit it looks very unlikely that the post is actually genuine. More likely is that it's a butthurt fan of another Zerg player (first guess: IdrA, he simply has the most fans) that once lost to Nerchio and now wants to start a Destiny/Orb like witch hunt.
While your speculation may be true, you shouldn't throw people like Idra under the bus for no reason with no proof.
I don't throw IdrA under the bus and resent the accusation of doing so.
The guy I am throwing under the bus is "zergthrowaway" who I deduce to be a butthurt fan of another zerg player. Considering the fact that IdrA is the Zerg player with by far the most fans it is most likely a fan of IdrA. My source on the amount of fans is the size of the fan club thread combined with the amount of twitter followers.
Having established a theory that it's a fan of a zerg player does not mean in any way, shape or form that said zerg player has any influence on him. The only way that would be the case is if he had actually directly encouraged the guy to try and create a witch hunt with that reddit post. I never claimed that was the case and hence I resent the accusation.
Also I highly doubt a person such as IdrA would be stupid enough to direct someone to create that mess, especially as he has seen up close what the match fixing scandal did with pro gaming. I consider it far more likely that the butthurt fan decided to take action in his own hands and decided to start this smear campaign with the aim of hoping to eliminate a competitor of his favorite player. |
| |
|
| thebig1 May 29 2012 23:52. Posts 87 | Profile # |
On May 29 2012 17:02 Inori wrote:
What I care about, and what I meant about when I said "client needs to be stateless" is completely different issue.
The way it works right now is that units, buildings, are rendered and updated in real time. Rendering a unit for first time is expensive, btw. But it's not such a big issue because it's only done once in a lifetime of a unit, then it's just recalculation of unit positioning. Same for anything else. Buildings, mineral patch sizes, whatever.
That's called stateful client. A client that relies on previously inputted data, updating it with newly sent (which is only updates to previous state).
The way you and bunch of other clueless people suggests is only achievable when client becomes stateless as far as FoW goes, i.e. stops depending on previous data and creates everything on the fly based on full game state data that is sent from server (rather than just updates to existing). This is the only way to solve maphacking issue, because then there's nothing to read from memory, since it's created on the fly each tick.
What this results in is that your PC will have to create/render/recalculate every single unit each time it comes out of your FoW, then destroy each time it goes back in and so on. This is a major overhaul for any system. (remember than first time render is expensive.. well now it's each time first time).
If you're seriously going to argue with this again, before that, I'd really want to ask for a favor - just do a couple of experiments - run a big replay on 8x, create a custom map and suddenly drop 200/200 units, make some other sudden game huge change you can think of. I dare you to tell me your PC won't lag. And then image it will lag like this each time opponent steps out of FoW and tell me it's a question of couple of bytes.
About GH/SO - I only brought it up because you immediately assumed I'm highschool level without even trying to dive into the points I was making. To get away from that assumption I provided proof I'm not and thus in response I also wanted same from you.
Btw I also work in corporate sector (in fact, people that don't are very tiny % of total developers), sorry but that's a stupid excuse not to take part in OS world. But that's a completely different subject, so whatever.
Running a replay on 8x doesn't have anything to do with things... In order to run the game at 8x you either need to run the game logic at 480fps (60*8) and then drop frames... Sure there are tricks you can use to help with this, but it's still not going to be great. So yeah, if people can only manage 70fps running the game normally, they are only going to get like 9 at 8x speed.
You don't need to dispose a unit every time it leaves the fog of war. You would try to keep as much in memory as you could... Y could just ou do something like get the server to stop sending info and send a hide bit, then the units can be completely kept in memory and not updated on the map. That gives you the same result of it being compeltely stateless. Both ways you could get total count of units, and their last position. If you were really worried about memory in team games you could send death messages globally to tell clients when to dispose units when they died. However, on modern computers that shouldn't really be an issue. Most of the memory is taken up by things like assets anyways.
I am in a rush to type this post (like always, life too busy), but programming in games (and other projects tbh) is all about taking shortcuts. You very rarely do it the "correct" way, such as trying to make your stateless game. The correct way is too slow. You get something that works nearly as well, but is way faster and use that instead. |
|
|
 Pantythief Denmark. May 29 2012 23:54. Posts 657 | Profile # |
On May 29 2012 07:22 rotegirte wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 29 2012 07:03 Pantythief wrote:
On May 29 2012 06:40 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
Holy shit so I just read some stuff about hacks.
Apparently there are external hacks and internal hacks.
Internal hacks are like the hardcore hacks, which can do things like blink your stalkers for you.
External hacks are apparently weaker but they still allow you things like production tab, vision, see his resources, etc.
Now apparently Blizzard lost a lawsuit, where until 6 years ago, in WoW, they would scan your entire computer for these external hacks (external hacks don't change the game so Warden doesn't pick up the signature). However it was ruled that that was illegal, since Warden was invading privacy.
So to my understanding, if you use these external hacks... the only way Blizzard can catch you is if they some reason scan the entire computer again, or if someone looks at the replay and catches you being suspicious by blind countering and/or looking at their base through fog of war and such. However, it can be hard to decide whether someone is hacking or not in this manner because, for example, maybe you scroll over to their base in the fog of war, just to see if they took any gas or not. But for a hacker, they are looking at their army, and then decide whether to attack or not. This kind of thing would be hard to tell if they're hacking or not.
So basically, so far only the internal hackers and the stupid external hackers are being caught and banned. What about those who use external hacks in moderation? This is scaring me a bit... there could be many many hackers right now. I google'd some sc2 hacks and there is a website that is thriving with them (d3scene).
Maybe the ones who created the hacks are lying about the safety of external hacks though, but even those who are using the internal hacks... I haven't seen anyone say they have been caught with it. Maybe after a while, blizzard will find out, and do a mass ban again. But for now, everyone using the internal hacks (which are claimed to be undetectable) seems to be able to play freely until blizzard does something about it. And by freely I mean that it's been a few months already!
If this is true, then holy fuck. If not, then whew. Maybe someone who knows more about programming and such can shed more light on this?
Oh yeah to make things worse, the people who are releasing these "public hacks" are saying they use a different version themselves. The reason being, if blizzard catches on to a public version, and does a mass ban, the creator -- the one causing the trouble! -- will still be safe, since his hack is different. It seems stopping hacking is much harder than people think, and this can explain why Blizzard is so slow about it.
External hacks are hacks that are unable for Warden or any other anti-cheat system to detect, because they're rooted locally on your computer and into your memory. Internal hacks are the ones you constantly hear about in "large ban-waves, omg, omg" Yes, you are correct. It's illegal for Blizzard and any other company to "scan" your system. D3scene has been around since the day most of you were born, I know a moderator on there from old times. Also, you got it wrong with the external and internal hacks -- the MAJORITY wants to use EXTERNAL hacks, so that they can hack for as long as they want to, without getting detected, until the game is patched. Once the game has been patched I imagine that the author of the hack will update it, so that it will remain undetectable. Internal hacks are spotted almost instantly by Warden because the .exe file is injecting into the starcraft2.exe file. Blizzard cannot stop this -- no company can. The technology to stop external hacks is being slowed down because of the Consumer-Privacy law. I dare say an experienced hacker knows better than any gaming company out there.
Out of curiosity, the general consensus I have gotten on the web is that Blizzard isn't particularly sophisticated at shielding their game. Technically speaking, is there even a theoretical way to mitigate the compromise of an online multiplayer RTS? I mean, could they have designed it any (significant) way better on code level? I ask this, because it would be pretty much an eternal problem for every future RTS for any company
Sorry for the late reply --
No, Blizzard could not have done a better job, in fact, it's VERY easy to code an anti-cheat software for your game(s), as of now the problem is "eternal", I'm afraid. I know enough about coding to tell you how this is a problem and what Blizzard can or cannot do, but I'm not even sure that the technology is here yet, to even start thinking about the future.
|
| | afkøaoilncpsdpdnaædc |  |
|
|
| i)awn United States. May 30 2012 00:00. Posts 137 | Profile # |
| Why can't they just keep opponents information on the server side and just send the eligible ones? Unless Blizzard server is getting hacked altogether. In anyways; this is is not necessary if Blizzard simply check all hack reports seriously and perma ban the account. The problem though will then be with those who know how to hack and not look suspicious. |
|
|
| Pantythief Denmark. May 30 2012 00:00. Posts 657 | Profile # |
On May 29 2012 07:23 HansK wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 29 2012 07:03 Pantythief wrote:
On May 29 2012 06:40 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
Holy shit so I just read some stuff about hacks.
Apparently there are external hacks and internal hacks.
Internal hacks are like the hardcore hacks, which can do things like blink your stalkers for you.
External hacks are apparently weaker but they still allow you things like production tab, vision, see his resources, etc.
Now apparently Blizzard lost a lawsuit, where until 6 years ago, in WoW, they would scan your entire computer for these external hacks (external hacks don't change the game so Warden doesn't pick up the signature). However it was ruled that that was illegal, since Warden was invading privacy.
So to my understanding, if you use these external hacks... the only way Blizzard can catch you is if they some reason scan the entire computer again, or if someone looks at the replay and catches you being suspicious by blind countering and/or looking at their base through fog of war and such. However, it can be hard to decide whether someone is hacking or not in this manner because, for example, maybe you scroll over to their base in the fog of war, just to see if they took any gas or not. But for a hacker, they are looking at their army, and then decide whether to attack or not. This kind of thing would be hard to tell if they're hacking or not.
So basically, so far only the internal hackers and the stupid external hackers are being caught and banned. What about those who use external hacks in moderation? This is scaring me a bit... there could be many many hackers right now. I google'd some sc2 hacks and there is a website that is thriving with them (d3scene).
Maybe the ones who created the hacks are lying about the safety of external hacks though, but even those who are using the internal hacks... I haven't seen anyone say they have been caught with it. Maybe after a while, blizzard will find out, and do a mass ban again. But for now, everyone using the internal hacks (which are claimed to be undetectable) seems to be able to play freely until blizzard does something about it. And by freely I mean that it's been a few months already!
If this is true, then holy fuck. If not, then whew. Maybe someone who knows more about programming and such can shed more light on this?
Oh yeah to make things worse, the people who are releasing these "public hacks" are saying they use a different version themselves. The reason being, if blizzard catches on to a public version, and does a mass ban, the creator -- the one causing the trouble! -- will still be safe, since his hack is different. It seems stopping hacking is much harder than people think, and this can explain why Blizzard is so slow about it.
External hacks are hacks that are unable for Warden or any other anti-cheat system to detect, because they're rooted locally on your computer and into your memory. Internal hacks are the ones you constantly hear about in "large ban-waves, omg, omg" Yes, you are correct. It's illegal for Blizzard and any other company to "scan" your system. D3scene has been around since the day most of you were born, I know a moderator on there from old times. Also, you got it wrong with the external and internal hacks -- the MAJORITY wants to use EXTERNAL hacks, so that they can hack for as long as they want to, without getting detected, until the game is patched. Once the game has been patched I imagine that the author of the hack will update it, so that it will remain undetectable. Internal hacks are spotted almost instantly by Warden because the .exe file is injecting into the starcraft2.exe file. Blizzard cannot stop this -- no company can. The technology to stop external hacks is being slowed down because of the Consumer-Privacy law. I dare say an experienced hacker knows better than any gaming company out there.
You're wrong in the fact that internal hacks are detected almost instantly. As of right now, the warden has no preemptive systems in place. Internal hacks get released, so many months later blizzard decides to add it to the the list of signatures to ban for and then they do a ban wave. From this point on, that certain hack version will be detectable by Warden and then get you a near instant ban. The thing is even when they do this internal hack authors are able to see how they banned it(for example, one hack the warden targeted did so by detecting a message function the hack used from the game, "xxx hack loaded" to flag the user for a ban). By removing that it forces the current way they use warden to re-ban it pretty much and that is what currently goes on. Internal hack released, X months later it's banned, X weeks later it's updated and safe again. Now, on to the preemptive measures. It's entirely possible prevent maphack from even being possible at all, how ever not with the current SCII game design where the map data needs to be shared with each client. It's also possible to make internal hacks very very hard to use even with the current warden but not much effort is put into that.. We're basically in a situation where unless blizzard makes some drastic changes maphack and other related hacks will always 100% of the time be running wild even in the highest of GM and lowest of bronze.
Show nested quote +Out of curiosity, the general consensus I have gotten on the web is that Blizzard isn't particularly sophisticated at shielding their game. Technically speaking, is there even a theoretical way to mitigate the compromise of an online multiplayer RTS? I mean, could they have designed it any (significant) way better on code level?
They could for sure make it impossible to maphack. They could also next to get rid of completely internal hacks, combine the two and you would only have some weird hacks like auto-blink and stuff like that.
I wasn't speaking about Warden exclusively, and I forgot to mention the part about recognizing a signature before Warden takes action.
I agree, but it's much more complex than that. When you explain it that way, you make it sound like there's little to no difference between internal and external hacks.
We've heard the "Blizzard needs to change stuff"-argument so many times now, but the problem remains; Blizzard have no clue how to do this. And to be honest, I can only think of Riot Games who're up-to-date with their security, so I can't blame Blizzard, really. No matter the game design, hackers become smarter (the authors anyway) as more complex security is developed.
|
| | afkøaoilncpsdpdnaædc | |
|
|
| wimpwimpwimp May 30 2012 00:02. Posts 26 | Profile # |
| . Last edit: 2012-05-30 00:03:34 |
| |
|
| Mendelfist Sweden. May 30 2012 00:09. Posts 286 | Profile # |
On May 29 2012 23:52 thebig1 wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 29 2012 17:02 Inori wrote:
What I care about, and what I meant about when I said "client needs to be stateless" is completely different issue.
The way it works right now is that units, buildings, are rendered and updated in real time. Rendering a unit for first time is expensive, btw. But it's not such a big issue because it's only done once in a lifetime of a unit, then it's just recalculation of unit positioning. Same for anything else. Buildings, mineral patch sizes, whatever.
That's called stateful client. A client that relies on previously inputted data, updating it with newly sent (which is only updates to previous state).
The way you and bunch of other clueless people suggests is only achievable when client becomes stateless as far as FoW goes, i.e. stops depending on previous data and creates everything on the fly based on full game state data that is sent from server (rather than just updates to existing). This is the only way to solve maphacking issue, because then there's nothing to read from memory, since it's created on the fly each tick.
What this results in is that your PC will have to create/render/recalculate every single unit each time it comes out of your FoW, then destroy each time it goes back in and so on. This is a major overhaul for any system. (remember than first time render is expensive.. well now it's each time first time).
If you're seriously going to argue with this again, before that, I'd really want to ask for a favor - just do a couple of experiments - run a big replay on 8x, create a custom map and suddenly drop 200/200 units, make some other sudden game huge change you can think of. I dare you to tell me your PC won't lag. And then image it will lag like this each time opponent steps out of FoW and tell me it's a question of couple of bytes.
About GH/SO - I only brought it up because you immediately assumed I'm highschool level without even trying to dive into the points I was making. To get away from that assumption I provided proof I'm not and thus in response I also wanted same from you.
Btw I also work in corporate sector (in fact, people that don't are very tiny % of total developers), sorry but that's a stupid excuse not to take part in OS world. But that's a completely different subject, so whatever.
Running a replay on 8x doesn't have anything to do with things... In order to run the game at 8x you either need to run the game logic at 480fps (60*8) and then drop frames... Sure there are tricks you can use to help with this, but it's still not going to be great. So yeah, if people can only manage 70fps running the game normally, they are only going to get like 9 at 8x speed. You don't need to dispose a unit every time it leaves the fog of war. You would try to keep as much in memory as you could... Y could just ou do something like get the server to stop sending info and send a hide bit, then the units can be completely kept in memory and not updated on the map. That gives you the same result of it being compeltely stateless. Both ways you could get total count of units, and their last position. If you were really worried about memory in team games you could send death messages globally to tell clients when to dispose units when they died. However, on modern computers that shouldn't really be an issue. Most of the memory is taken up by things like assets anyways. I am in a rush to type this post (like always, life too busy), but programming in games (and other projects tbh) is all about taking shortcuts. You very rarely do it the "correct" way, such as trying to make your stateless game. The correct way is too slow. You get something that works nearly as well, but is way faster and use that instead.
One problem with stateless clients is that someone has to know the full game state, ie run the full game simulation, and if it isn't the client it has to be the server. I think you can pretty much forget Blizzard running the full game simulation for all the thousands of games going on at every moment.
The second problem with stateless clients is the bandwidth. Every time a user clicks on the minimap the server would have to send information about potentially hundreds of units in that area. That amounts to at least kilobytes of data, which would have to be sent in one game tick. Not viable. The current implementation only sends user input, ie essentially mouse and keyboard commands. No unit positions are sent. The amount of data in this case is negligible in comparison. |
|
|
| Bellazuk Canada. May 30 2012 00:14. Posts 146 | Profile # |
| I remember back in the days when I was one of the few legit cs 1.6 cal-m + player of my division. People hacked like crazy and they were damn good at making it not suspicious. I'm not even surprise some people hack in sc2, kids gotta do what they can to feed their laziness. I just hope we find a solution to find them more easily because sometimes I can swear i've been playing vs a maphacker, but looking at the replay it may looks just like that dude was being lucky over and over, nothing very blatant and if we find a way to detect out of a replay a hacker like instantly, that would be a great start. |
| | “The only thing standing between you and your goal is the bullshit story you keep telling yourself as to why you can't achieve it.” |  |
|
|
| Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 100 200 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 Next | |
|
|
|
| |
|
Sidebar Settings...
|
Store
