D2GS research finished?

[Ringo]

hmm, i havent done anything since yesterday and i have no plans on doing anything else.
Iv researched and documented around 100 packets (50 both ways) but iv been given a few cold feet impressions...
I would have liked to have seen some people join in and help document it seems as there was no interest or persional gain in me doing it.

Anyway i still need some answers from a number of people before i can finish up and leave.
Have i missed a subject/area or miss explained anything?
How is the infomation going to be 'checked'?
When is the infomation going to be 'checked'?
How many people need to check the infomation?
Is this infomation even going to be added to bnet docs?
Is my version of 'correct' good enough?
How to speed up this checking the infomation? (open source/referance?)

Other than this, iv had a chest infection and the flu for the past week, so im not in great moods, so if you cant keep on topic or help or anyway, DONT FUCKING POST HERE, the last topic was convo killed and i dont want this one to be.

thankyou 

[Ringo]

You should open your source code up, that way people new to the subject can start developing/adding to it as well.

Also you then have the added advantage of peer review to confirm your findings. Might make this easier for you, if you are not the only one doing it

I would have to write a new more simplifyed bot for open source, witch would take afew days.
if some people show interest in this topic for some open source, i will type somthing up.

As for correctness, i can't really say because i haven't looked through your information since you first released it. Although i can't remember seeing 0x9c, so thats one packet thats missing ( quite an important one as well ), if you haven't added it since then though.

Its freshly researched not released, hence the name of the topic.
That was the idea of researching, so the infomation could be verifyed for public domain.
As for the 0x9C and 0x9D packets, i documented 4 to 5 bytes intoboth, but now you have said it there no longer on there...
The post maxed out and i lost alot of S > C packets witch i had to redo and fuck doing them packets again.
If you feel there so important and you have the infomation already then by all means post it. (seems its all in txt files)
Seems as this infomation is for people to explore the protocol and not write a silly little brute forcer that does nothing more than force items out of the server, i see the packets importantce up to the persion who decides to explore that direction.

Would usefull infomation cover anything more than what i have already documented when it comes to adding D2GS support to a chatbot?

It would be nice if you would at least read the research topic and post anything you feel that covers your understanding of the game to be incorrect.

Thanks.

[Sorc.Polgara]

I've not kept much attention to this your research, but I just looked over waht you have on the sticky, and all I have to say i Good Work.

[QwertyMonster]

For open source, i would be more than happy to help you with it, so then it wont a couple of days and it will help people.

Once you have all the information correct, as OnlyMeat said some are wrong, just give me a shout on MSN and tell me a job, and i will do it for you.

[Ringo]

Why would you need to re-write it?. It doesn't have to be perfect before you release it. I'm sure the many people out there who would like to write d2 programs would appreciate the source you already have.

Because iv done alot of work that has nothing to do with the server.
If i type up an open source bot it will be less than perfect and probly do nothing more than simply connect to the game server, show some stuff in a richtext and a packet dump function to get them started.
I dont see the point in releaseing a bot that has everythibng already done, it defeats the object.

Without documenting the item packet, it leaves a big gaping hole in the game. Items are the most important things in d2. Thats not to say the other documentation isn't well done but without items it's not complete.

I really dont get where your coming from...
You think multiple magic find bots would be a bad thing for d2, so you went and made one.
On top of that you feel the item packet is very important to document publicly.
So what you said there, would infact be wrong and the other way around?
Your getting confusing and controdicting.

Well, im really commenting from personal experience when i say the item packet is important. When i created my clientless bot a key part of it was detecting drops, checking the properties and comparing against user defined item lists then picking them up.

So you have made a program that you feel is bad for d2 and the most important part of doing this was the 0x9C packet.
What statment are you agreeing with there?

You asked for opinions so i'm providing one

You have given me 2 very controdicting sides to your opinions

I've never seen any way to bute force a server for items using the 0x9c packet, unless you know something we don't

I might be wrong in thinking what a brute forcer style program is.
I thought it was somthing like a program that tryed to connect to somthing like a server, gets to the point where it can obtain the infomation its looking for and then requests it, then repeats none stop in a trail and error fashion in the hope to obtain what its looking for.

I did read the initial post and some of them were incorrect at that time. I did provide the overhead chat event addition.

And i thank you on behalf of everyone who tolk interrest in the research and anyone who will be later useing the infomation.

as far as the more complex packets are concerned, thats my private research.

I think you said in the last topic the reassion why your keeping your complex research private, because you feel it would build up to a large number of clientless/magic find bots witch you felt was bad for D2.
That i can understand, but your view on me documenting 0x9C i am still unsure about.

I've not kept much attention to this your research, but I just looked over waht you have on the sticky, and all I have to say i Good Work.

Thanks, i just hope it gets put to good use

For open source, i would be more than happy to help you with it, so then it wont a couple of days and it will help people.
Once you have all the information correct, as OnlyMeat said some are wrong, just give me a shout on MSN and tell me a job, and i will do it for you.

Thanks for the offer, im hoping to get some people interested in building it up on the existing infomation to verify its correctness, but i will keep it in mind if/when the time comes! thanks.

[edit]
OnlyMeat why do you keep removing your posts?

the last topic was convo killed and i dont want this one to be.

[QwertyMonster]

About testing:

Its been verified on msn with Ringo that i get to beta and test it. You will prob have to ask him about you too, not sure.

I have been discussing alot with him

[QwertyMonster]

Why do you want to beta something you have already done?

[Ringo]

I would imagine they would beable to disect your parsing routines/sending routines. Quite usefull i would have thought to give them a base to work from.

Hm, it does alittle more than just send/recv, you would need to see the size of the project to see what im taking about.
How ever, after my last post in this topic iv dragged my buffer module to a new folder and started a open source project.

Well, my personal opinion regarding releasing my own work is of course different to yours. But seeing as you have make it public, im simply saying that adding item packet information would be important an part of it.

Iv been thinking about this and iv never once wanted to research the item packet.
Theres millions of possible programs/bots that can be made that dont involve item packets.
For example bots that interact with other online players, by this i mean following bots, helper bots, muling bots, rushable bots, rushing bots and tones of other stuff (witch are nice programs)
But with the item packets infomation, i can see a few possible advantages when it comes to making a bot that interacts with other online players, and a hell of alot of path ways that give rise to abuse.
If you ask me, just the items existance (its ID and its 1st few bytes) is more than enough when it comes picking the item up, moving it to and from the mouse curser/stash;nventory;cube;trade screen etc

It's not bad for d2 at all, because i'm the only one with the sources. What im getting at is that it makes no difference releasing 0x9c as it would any other packet in terms of potential hacks etc.

Well, i think iv stated my point above.
And yes it is a bad thing, because the bot you speek of sounds no differnt to D2JSP pindle bot, witch is everywhere.
Such programs only make the rich richer and the poor poorer.
Have u seen how easy it is to get IP banned for crating a few games to quick?, its not nice when blizzard give u a nice 8 hour IP ban from the realm server cos they think you are such a bot.
If you read the d2 forums on blizzards site, you will see how pissed off the d2 players are getting about it.
But what can blizzard do?
D2 players can wait for 5min in a 1000 long cue to create a game (cos everyone is loading such bots)
Or they can run the risk of getting realm down for hours when changing chars, or having to find a sutible game to play in.
I dont want to document infomation in such detail so it could just add to this problem.

Like i said, my opinion on releasing my own sources is different from yours, thats all. I see nothing wrong with releasing sources/documentation if the author chooses that route.

I think 50 C > S and 50 S > C + a ready made open source bot to start them off is more than enough on my behalf.

I would have thought releasing the sources would help you verify the correctness of the information faster as other people could help with testing then.

Iv kept in mind why iv been wrighting this open source project, that many will probly download it and not help in the research at all. (change its name, fuck it up, w/e)
I dont expect any less than this when releaseing open source tho..
Iv almost finished the char logon and the char create stuff, and then its onto the game server.
Im probly only going to parse out about 10 D2GS Packets so people have to use the current documentation to build onto it, explore the protocol and clarify the current infomations correctness.

Why do you want to beta something you have already done?

I take it reading isn't one of your better skills:-

I've already done this research about 6 months/a year ago. My point was this would be useful for other people who haven't yet done it.

Lets hope his beta testing skills dont let him down then

[QwertyMonster]

Lets hope his beta testing skills dont let him down then

The cheek of it

I am ready to beta whenever btw, just give me a shout on msn. Thanks.