Before I rewrite CSB (for the 3rd time), I would like some input as to what features people want to see in it this time. There are already plans for how it will be implemented, so I'm looking for feature requests related to the actual b.net protocol. Anyone is welcome to suggest stuff.
Quote from: CupHead on October 26, 2003, 10:43 AM
Before I rewrite CSB (for the 3rd time), I would like some input as to what features people want to see in it this time. There are already plans for how it will be implemented, so I'm looking for feature requests related to the actual b.net protocol. Anyone is welcome to suggest stuff.
An optional callback that is called on data receipt / transmit, so the user can readily track all data being sent by CSB at the time of transmission. This would be very useful in letting people see exactly what they're sending when they use the packet-building capacilities.
An optional built-in flood protection queue, since so many people seem unable to write one.
Not crashing on using war3. ;)
Building on Kp's idea, I'd suggest that the user callback be able to disable the default CSB handling of a received messages. Among other things, this could be used as a workaround for problems like the current not-being-able-to-connect-as-Warcraft-III bug if/when you lose the source code again.
Yes, War3 will be the main fix. The flood protection can be added, and yes, I can add an event so that people can see what is sent.
Yes, that is also a good idea. I do tend to be so absent minded about these things. As a little bit of a preview, because of the implementation of the new CSB, users will have access to all data before it even gets into CSB routines thus allowing them to write custom handlers for packets.
1. An option NOT to handle chat events
2. Local Hashed Option
3. Support every client (STAR,SEXP,W2BN,D2DV,D2XP,WAR3,W3XP,SSHR,DRTL,DSHR, and CHAT)
4. Keep the packetbuilder like before
5. Optional Queue
6. If you dont want to go with local hashed option, let the user do it themselves with events such as:
CleanSlateBot1.Send0x51 Version, Checksum, GTC, Cdkeyhash, Exeinfo, Owner (etc... for all packets)
Edit - Removed #7 - people keep changing the subject by commenting on it.
Quote from: CupHead on October 26, 2003, 10:57 AM
Yes, War3 will be the main fix. The flood protection can be added, and yes, I can add an event so that people can see what is sent.
If you're adding a flood protection system, it may be a good idea to allow the user to specify an (optional) function for calculating message delays. Considering that Blizzard has changed their flood protection at least twice now, this would provide future compatibility if/when they do so again.
Hardcode it to prevent stupidity.
Like that would help. See DM's signature.
Don't allow people using it to join vL's channel. Make it remap the user's HOSTS file so they can't access forum.valhallalegends.com.
Diabolical... yet ingenious at the same time.
Maybe some type of simple command sub?
I think you should make it so it can update to the new patches and all or when a new patch comes out it will have no use on that game..
Quote from: SKiLLs on October 26, 2003, 07:06 PM
I think you should make it so it can update to the new patches and all or when a new patch comes out it will have no use on that game..
Old versions did this as well - it's a pleasant side-effect of using BNLS for handling the version check procedure.
It would be kind of cool if CSB did the entire queue thing for you. Like:
cleanslatebot1.addq "blah"
cleanslatebot1.sendqnum(element number)
cleanslatebot1.removeqnum(element number)
cleanslatebot1.clearq
That would certainly help new programmers from constantly dropping and getting IPbanned.
Quote from: DaRk-FeAnOr on October 26, 2003, 08:26 PM
It would be kind of cool if CSB did the entire queue thing for you. Like:
cleanslatebot1.addq "blah"
cleanslatebot1.sendqnum(element number)
cleanslatebot1.removeqnum(element number)
cleanslatebot1.clearq
That would certainly help new programmers from constantly dropping and getting IPbanned.
Yes, make it easier to make a floodbot :P
It would be kinda cool if everything was already written except a place where you fill in your name and the colors you want... ;)
Quote from: Adron on October 27, 2003, 03:13 AM
It would be kinda cool if everything was already written except a place where you fill in your name and the colors you want... ;)
(http://www.ninjazone.net/botwiz.gif)
Yeah, you're on the right track there!
LoL iago link me to that program :p i wanna see how the hell that would work
when some1 joins the Chat room have it support the Clan wc3 feature... maybe even adding / viewing the member in your wc3 clan...
like eternal? with the clan manager?
Quote from: blinkdude on October 27, 2003, 07:16 PM
when some1 joins the Chat room have it support the Clan wc3 feature... maybe even adding / viewing the member in your wc3 clan...
yea i like that idea! Any new WarCraft 3 features whould be nice to have in it!
Add 0ms and -1ms pingtimes
WarCraft 3 Support, Clan Making, Friends etc...
Make an option for loading voided keys in private channels
Why not just make it a bot instead of an ocx, since that's apparently what people seem to want...
The mind boggles...
Quote from: TriCk on October 28, 2003, 02:51 AM
Make an option for loading voided keys in private channels
If I'm not mistaken that was fixed, or no?
Was fixed
Proxy support would be the coolest thing ever! ;)
-Alex
Quote from: AlexM on October 28, 2003, 07:32 PM
Proxy support would be the coolest thing ever! ;)
-Alex
Yah! Lets put even more loaders on battle.net!
Why not just make a 'CupHead make me a bot' thread? ;)
iago's little ss of whatever that is would be pretty cool. I don't know if it is real, but oh dang.
It's not, technically, my screenshot. It is from a different thread. See if you can find the original author!
Quote from: hismajesty on October 28, 2003, 08:00 PM
Why not just make a 'CupHead make me a bot' thread? ;)
Been there, done that. (http://forum.valhallalegends.com/phpbbs/index.php?board=11;action=display;threadid=430)
Yeah, that didn't work so well, seeing as how I got bored after about a week. Still, it was a pretty productive week. Anyway, pertaining to CSB:
How would people feel about a CSB-Free and a CSB-Pro version? The Pro would naturally have more features, be more expensive (as in actually have a price like $5 or something), and just generally be better.
Wouldn't charging for such software allow Blizzard to take legal action?
Additionally, I think it's a really lame idea (personal opinion, though).
Quote from: Soul Taker on October 29, 2003, 03:48 PM
Wouldn't charging for such software allow Blizzard to take legal action?
Additionally, I think it's a really lame idea (personal opinion, though).
I don't think it's a lame idea as long as these are facts:
- The "pro" edition's features have nothing to do with the Battle.net connection, i.e. allowing Diablo II realm logon on the "pro" edition but not allowing it on the regular edition (EDIT) would be a bad idea
Oh, I guess I only needed to state one fact. That's Battle.net, and everything else... is everything else. Everything else works universally.
If it's such a bad idea, then people should feel free to write their own. CSB is a decent amount of work that I really don't want to do, and to be honest, I have no incentive to do. The only reason I'd complete it is to get rid of the people who bother me about making a new one. I figure if it's worth their time to bug me, it's worth some money for me to waste hours on something I don't want to do. (Oh my gosh, it's like having a job!) So, either plan on paying or not getting what you want. Either way is fine with me.
Personally, I think if you sold a CSB Pro you sell strictly your work, not the content. Make that totally clear when you sell it.
"Not the content" ? Content of what?
You don't think piracy will be a problem btw?
knowing how many people use CSB and want it wc3/tft logins many will pay... 5$$ maybe even.. 10$ .... Your Call your work... im using CSB now... on a webbot/ops i made for me.. and i know i would pay 5$ to make it wc3/clan support cause i run a wc3 clan...and that would be really use full , typing .des .rejoin is no fun...
Quote from: CupHead on October 29, 2003, 05:19 PM
The only reason I'd complete it is to get rid of the people who bother me about making a new one.
I think it's perfectly reasonable to charge for a Pro version. Just a thought, releasing a new version won't stop people bugging you...you'll have to go through the whole tutorial thing again AND people will still want to add more features for the next version ;-)
Quote from: CupHead on October 29, 2003, 05:19 PM
If it's such a bad idea, then people should feel free to write their own. CSB is a decent amount of work that I really don't want to do, and to be honest, I have no incentive to do. The only reason I'd complete it is to get rid of the people who bother me about making a new one. I figure if it's worth their time to bug me, it's worth some money for me to waste hours on something I don't want to do. (Oh my gosh, it's like having a job!) So, either plan on paying or not getting what you want. Either way is fine with me.
I believe the old CSB was fine and still works perfectly fine. Most people that bother you are most likely people that don't have the effort to solve problems themselves...
Was Cleanslatebot intended for users to learn programming and the workings battle.net? OR Was is it intended to be used as a crutch for programmers?
As we can see with Stealthbot, CSB in the right hands can be a powerful tool....
I personally would like to see an idiot kill feature on Battle.net, which would induce an instant apocalyptic firestorm on stupid people (I.e, users typing in all caps, calling other people "noobs", spamming to join clans, etc.)
I can't see any any way you could do that without Blizzard sueing you at some point. You'd be making money by selling a product for which all the technology was reverse-engineered (IE, stolen) from Blizzard. It violates their EULA and although that's not illegal, it would certainly violate some of the retarded copyright laws you guys have.
Quote from: Arta[vL] on November 01, 2003, 05:47 PM
I can't see any any way you could do that without Blizzard sueing you at some point. You'd be making money by selling a product for which all the technology was reverse-engineered (IE, stolen) from Blizzard. It violates their EULA and although that's not illegal, it would certainly violate some of the retarded copyright laws you guys have.
I would think that something which goes contrary to a set of laws would be illlegal.
Anyways, you don't have to actually run Blizzard's installer program to extract the game binaries. The installer packed data file format (MPQ) is fairly well documented and there are a number of third-party programs that could be used to extract the game binaries without running the installer, which is responsible for displaying the click-through license agreement.
Quote from: Dyndrilliac on November 01, 2003, 10:24 AM
I personally would like to see an idiot kill feature on Battle.net, which would induce an instant apocalyptic firestorm on stupid people (I.e, users typing in all caps, calling other people "noobs", spamming to join clans, etc.)
STFU NOOB
What about Trillian? It uses closed protocols and they charge for it, no one has sued them yet.
I think cuphead has the right to charge becuase programming is not easy for anyone and if hes going to be bothered to make it by alot of people he should atleast charge a one time fee for it and i am thank that he made cleanslatebot2 becuase it helped me make my first bot i do programming as a hobby with out CSB i would never have been able to do connection scripts no packet loggers work for me so thank you cuphead and i belive you can charge money for your hard work
although im sure alot of work is put into CSB and servers i dont think anyone should charge anyone for using CSB
ps. Dyndrilliac u can squelch users if they annoy you, im sure blizzard doesnt like the idea of noobs spamming and it was only yesterday, Kenny-Z was asking some user to stop writing in caps, but i dont think blizzard are gonna implement ur idea nor take any note of it
Quote from: -MichaeL- on November 01, 2003, 07:55 PMbecuase programming is not easy for anyone
Completely wrong. There are many people for whom programming is both easy and intuitive. If you're not one of them, you're perhaps in the wrong line of pursuit.
Quote from: Crim-Training on November 01, 2003, 08:03 PM
ps. Dyndrilliac u can squelch users if they annoy you, im sure blizzard doesnt like the idea of noobs spamming and it was only yesterday, Kenny-Z was asking some user to stop writing in caps, but i dont think blizzard are gonna implement ur idea nor take any note of it
Well, it was a mix of kidding and sarcasm, but that's beside the point. On the issue of charging, it would not go against their EULA if the product your selling is stand alone(I.E, not requiring a Blizzard Product installed to run) because the user is simply using a 3rd party client to logon to a free public server, not a product that is licensed or endorsed by Blizzard Entertainment(Thus making all agreements void, because the EULA only pertains to the game client).
Edit: You can tell my suggestion was a joke because to begin with it's impossible, but oh well.
Quote from: CupHead on October 29, 2003, 05:19 PM
I'd complete it is to get rid of the people who bother me about making a new one. I figure if it's worth their time to bug me, it's worth some money for me to waste hours on something I don't want to do.
how about charging the ppl who annoy you and and ask for your help ?
CSB is great, but if you will be charging ppl for it id rather learn winsocks
its only a game, i dont remember the box saying:
"**Warning** this game may cost you extra in the future ie. buying names, making 3rd party bots, buying d2 items"
Its amazing how many ppl spend so much extra money after buying a game, d2 items, illegal accounts and some programs
my 2cents anyway
and Dyndrilliac, how can i tell its a joke when you, or someone rem ur post ?
EDIT: grammar
Quote from: Crim-Training on November 02, 2003, 03:01 AM
and Dyndrilliac, how can i tell its a joke when you, or someone rem ur post ?
EDIT: grammar
I'm sorry but...I don't understand at all what your saying. Does "rem" mean remove? because last I checked it wasn't deleted...
Edit: Yup, I was right. Here (http://forum.valhallalegends.com/phpbbs/index.php?board=17;action=display;threadid=3283;start=30). My post is the 2nd to last at the bottom.
Quote from: CupHead on November 01, 2003, 07:24 PM
What about Trillian? It uses closed protocols and they charge for it, no one has sued them yet.
The rare, valid point :P
Yeah, read my reply earlier; I tried to stress that a regular edition should be released without the "goodies"-- Trillian Pro is Trillian with goodies. Trillian is free, but Trillian Pro is not. The connection processes are "the same" in both, but Trillian Pro has goodies. So as long as they share that aspect, and users have a choice of what they want to use, I can't find a reason to think that a Pro edition would be wrong to make.
Trillian pro isn't *THAT* different from Trillian.
CSB should have a plugin engine so users can dynamically run/stop their own C++ plugins!
On the subject of Trillian, in some cases Trillian Pro is worse than Trillian Basic, because there was an error some time ago (Not sure if it still exists) that crashed the program in some instances when using IRC.
I can't see why you'd want to use Trillian for IRC anyway...it's an instant messaging client. IRC has a bunch of other features that other programs support better.
Quote from: Zakath on November 04, 2003, 08:20 AM
I can't see why you'd want to use Trillian for IRC anyway...it's an instant messaging client. IRC has a bunch of other features that other programs support better.
I don't see why you'd want to use Trillian, unless you like giving random users the ability to run code on your system (perhaps they fixed this finally, but I'm doubtful).
Quote from: Skywing on November 04, 2003, 12:52 PM
Quote from: Zakath on November 04, 2003, 08:20 AM
I can't see why you'd want to use Trillian for IRC anyway...it's an instant messaging client. IRC has a bunch of other features that other programs support better.
I don't see why you'd want to use Trillian, unless you like giving random users the ability to run code on your system (perhaps they fixed this finally, but I'm doubtful).
Laziness and convenience. Same reason that everybody doesn't run linux :P
People can send certain amounts of money to cuphead's paypal account as a gift, of course. Additionally, cuphead can send them the csb ocx for free, as a gift.
Quote from: TheMinistered on November 04, 2003, 01:27 PM
People can send certain amounts of money to cuphead's paypal account as a gift, of course. Additionally, cuphead can send them the csb ocx for free, as a gift.
Or the csb control could send certain amounts of money to cupheads paypal acount.
Quote from: TheMinistered on November 04, 2003, 01:27 PM
People can send certain amounts of money to cuphead's paypal account as a gift, of course. Additionally, cuphead can send them the csb ocx for free, as a gift.
We tried that to sell beer to minors. It doesn't work.
Quote from: Zakath on November 04, 2003, 08:20 AM
I can't see why you'd want to use Trillian for IRC anyway...it's an instant messaging client. IRC has a bunch of other features that other programs support better.
A little known fact is that Trillian started out as an IRC client.
A well known fact, however, is that it really, really sucks at it.
Don't use Trillian for IRC. It's full of major holes that aren't likely to be fixed.
The first thing I do when I install Trillian is delete irc.dll (the second is delete yahoo.dll).
Trillian is fairly decent at other protocols, except for NAT incompatibility and other annoyances on MSN.
Quote from: Dyndrilliac on November 02, 2003, 12:28 AM
Quote from: Crim-Training on November 01, 2003, 08:03 PM
ps. Dyndrilliac u can squelch users if they annoy you, im sure blizzard doesnt like the idea of noobs spamming and it was only yesterday, Kenny-Z was asking some user to stop writing in caps, but i dont think blizzard are gonna implement ur idea nor take any note of it
Well, it was a mix of kidding and sarcasm, but that's beside the point. On the issue of charging, it would not go against their EULA if the product your selling is stand alone(I.E, not requiring a Blizzard Product installed to run) because the user is simply using a 3rd party client to logon to a free public server, not a product that is licensed or endorsed by Blizzard Entertainment(Thus making all agreements void, because the EULA only pertains to the game client).
Edit: You can tell my suggestion was a joke because to begin with it's impossible, but oh well.
Just out of curiosity, are you certain the Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos EULA only applies to the game client? According to the EULA for Battle.net provided with Warcraft III, you may only have one connection open at a time to Battle.net regardless of how many Battle.net games you own; you may only use the game software to connect to Battle.net; and Battle.net is a private server provided only to the licensees of the games that are Battle.net-enabled.
Additionally, on the note regarding the stand-alone product, I had a question - BNLS uses the actual hash files, right? You didn't actually reverse-engineer the hashing algorithms, but rather just hooked into the entry points of the hash files and provided an interface to that over the BNLS server, correct? If that is the case, the client is not actually stand-alone, but using a service that uses the game files at some point along the way.
At least, according to them, the EULA does not solely pertain to the game client. That is where your, if any, legal issue(s) will arise.
--Rob
Quote from: Myndfyre on November 04, 2003, 07:43 PM
Quote from: Dyndrilliac on November 02, 2003, 12:28 AM
Quote from: Crim-Training on November 01, 2003, 08:03 PM
ps. Dyndrilliac u can squelch users if they annoy you, im sure blizzard doesnt like the idea of noobs spamming and it was only yesterday, Kenny-Z was asking some user to stop writing in caps, but i dont think blizzard are gonna implement ur idea nor take any note of it
Well, it was a mix of kidding and sarcasm, but that's beside the point. On the issue of charging, it would not go against their EULA if the product your selling is stand alone(I.E, not requiring a Blizzard Product installed to run) because the user is simply using a 3rd party client to logon to a free public server, not a product that is licensed or endorsed by Blizzard Entertainment(Thus making all agreements void, because the EULA only pertains to the game client).
Edit: You can tell my suggestion was a joke because to begin with it's impossible, but oh well.
Just out of curiosity, are you certain the Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos EULA only applies to the game client? According to the EULA for Battle.net provided with Warcraft III, you may only have one connection open at a time to Battle.net regardless of how many Battle.net games you own; you may only use the game software to connect to Battle.net; and Battle.net is a private server provided only to the licensees of the games that are Battle.net-enabled.
Additionally, on the note regarding the stand-alone product, I had a question - BNLS uses the actual hash files, right? You didn't actually reverse-engineer the hashing algorithms, but rather just hooked into the entry points of the hash files and provided an interface to that over the BNLS server, correct? If that is the case, the client is not actually stand-alone, but using a service that uses the game files at some point along the way.
At least, according to them, the EULA does not solely pertain to the game client. That is where your, if any, legal issue(s) will arise.
--Rob
I think you would find it difficult for anyone to prove one way or another what method BNLS uses to acquire the correct version check values without having direct access to BNLS itself.
Well, i base what I said on StarCraft, Warcraft II, and Diablo, as those are the only blizzard games I own, so I can't be certain of others. I assumed they were the same. Because many values on Diabo are client sided, it's EULA for most people right off the bat is worthless - because since when is it illegal to edit the memory of an active process temporarily on your own computer that has no effect on the battle.net server whatsoever ("hacks" (patching of ingame memory), and such)? It's similar in almost all cases to Open Diablo II -- The host of the game acts as the server, and since it belongs to him/her, it is beyond the control of Blizzard Entertainment.
On the subject of SC and WCII, using the hash files has no affect on the EULA - because since you don't neccesarily have to install the product to use them, you dont neccesarily have to agree to the terms of service to aquire or use them in bots or BNLS, making the TOS/EULA completely Null and Void.
Quote from: Dyndrilliac on November 04, 2003, 09:50 PM
Well, i base what I said on StarCraft, Warcraft II, and Diablo, as those are the only blizzard games I own, so I can't be certain of others. I assumed they were the same. Because many values on Diabo are client sided, it's EULA for most people right off the bat is worthless - because since when is it illegal to edit the memory of an active process temporarily on your own computer that has no effect on the battle.net server whatsoever ("hacks" (patching of ingame memory), and such)? It's similar in almost all cases to Open Diablo II -- The host of the game acts as the server, and since it belongs to him/her, it is beyond the control of Blizzard Entertainment.
On the subject of SC and WCII, using the hash files has no affect on the EULA - because since you don't neccesarily have to install the product to use them, you dont neccesarily have to agree to the terms of service to aquire or use them in bots or BNLS, making the TOS/EULA completely Null and Void.
While most people dont think EULAs matter at all, its still note-wrothy that the EULA can restrict you from doing pretty much anything because US copyright law states that if the copyright agreement is broken(the EULA) then the holding party can revoke the ability to use. That is atleast how license like the GPL work, im not sure if EULA fall under the same type of contract.
Well thats the thing, because to use hash files you dont have to install the actual program or agree to the EULA to use them and then this automatically makes the pact/contract between company and user void.
Quote from: Dyndrilliac on November 05, 2003, 08:13 AM
Well thats the thing, because to use hash files you dont have to install the actual program or agree to the EULA to use them and then this automatically makes the pact/contract between company and user void.
Lies! You can extract them directly from install.exe using an mpq-extraction program.
Quote from: iago on November 05, 2003, 08:17 AM
Quote from: Dyndrilliac on November 05, 2003, 08:13 AM
Well thats the thing, because to use hash files you dont have to install the actual program or agree to the EULA to use them and then this automatically makes the pact/contract between company and user void.
Lies! You can extract them directly from install.exe using an mpq-extraction program.
I'm pretty sure that's what he was saying, iago. But how many people would want to use a bot to chat on Battle.net that have never installed a Blizzard title?
Another suggestion, since so many people are unable to code working databases into their programs (ie: they use some sequential file), make it have a Database property in which you can use an existing access/other database type.
Quote from: Freeware on November 06, 2003, 05:40 PM
Another suggestion, since so many people are unable to code working databases into their programs (ie: they use some sequential file), make it have a Database property in which you can use an existing access/other database type.
That is an excellent idea. Another option may be to add built-in support for Grok's BotNet OCX as a database provider.
Quote from: Soul Taker on November 05, 2003, 12:20 PM
I'm pretty sure that's what he was saying, iago. But how many people would want to use a bot to chat on Battle.net that have never installed a Blizzard title?
Exactly - But I for one use bos, and do not play the game or have any Blizzard Titles installed on my machine at the moment because I for one no longer play the games. When you uninstall a Blizzard Product it invalidates the EULA, so because I have none installed their rules and terms of service do not apply to me.
Quote from: UserLoser. on November 07, 2003, 08:47 AM
Quote from: Skywing on November 06, 2003, 08:43 PM
That is an excellent idea. Another option may be to add built-in support for Grok's BotNet OCX as a database provider.
That would mean more people bugging you to create them a database!
A nice little form submission would be nice for that. It would also be good for BNLS & WebBot. A simple cgi/php script that just asks users for a sername, a password, & whatever other information is required for that specific thing.
Quote from: CrAz3D on November 07, 2003, 12:07 PM
Quote from: UserLoser. on November 07, 2003, 08:47 AM
Quote from: Skywing on November 06, 2003, 08:43 PM
That is an excellent idea. Another option may be to add built-in support for Grok's BotNet OCX as a database provider.
That would mean more people bugging you to create them a database!
A nice little form submission would be nice for that. It would also be good for BNLS & WebBot. A simple cgi/php script that just asks users for a sername, a password, & whatever other information is required for that specific thing.
That's why we have the WebBot/BNLS request forum. Note that Botnet databases aren't given out as easily as it is to get your WebChannel or BNLS account registered.