Two year anniversary of the chat bot restriction

[electrostatistic]

On June 4, 2001, many of us who originally developed chat bots encountered the difficulty of Battle.net restricting chat bot logins into private channels.  This led to the expedition of emulating the game clients we now see all around the Internet now.  This includes the people who share, leech, or the actual developers of the methods used in order to use the modern "emulating" logon system.  The change made many of us work harder, and some of us shared, leaked, or even stole credit for doing so, but the idea is that bot development changed on that day.

The relevance of this topic is that the goals of bot development changed drastically; many developers forgot about the intuition they have in creating features, or the actual "robotic" functions of the client.  Of course I'm glad people are spending their time working with the packet manipulating and reverse engineering aspect of bot developing, but I was wondering where the novel automative qualities of bot developing have gone.

Are the goals of bot development the sharing of packet based ideas?  Or are they hidden in a pit, one that we are not willing to fall down into... this post is not a complaint.  I am trying to stress this: where have your priorities in bot developing gone: are you collaborating with others to make yourself feel better, are you doing everything you can on your own without helping others, are you trying to become a service monopoly, are you trying to gain some sort of reputation on Battle.net, are you thinking more about automation rather than the socket-based aspect of the bot, or are you just spending time not really sure of what you are doing?  I know that I am just working on features.  What is your idea of what a bot is?

[CupHead]

* CupHead laughs at the thinly veiled dislike of BNLS.

[Tuberload]

I would have to agree with you on this subject.  I think most of the people on this forum are so overwhelmed with the process of connecting and using battle.net's binary gateway, that once they actually get connected they some how feel superior to the others who are yet too, even though their bot is probably not even their own work.  I keep quiet because I don't like to stick my nose in areas I have not completely mastered.

Actually right now I'm working on the core to my bot created in Java.  It currently only connects using the chat gateway, but I am more interested in getting it's features working, then I plan on making it connect using the binary gateway. I just want to get its plug-in architecture completed, and then I can easily convert it.

Whether this reply was relevant to the thread or not I don't know, just thought I would share my project in a truthful manner.

[Banana fanna fo fanna]

* CupHead laughs at the thinly veiled dislike of BNLS.

No. I think it's more of a complement of BNLS really...BNLS frees you from having to deal with the binary connection shit and lets you be free to implement features.

Rai: I totally agree.

[Tuberload]

In some ways writing a bot that uses BNLS is actually more complicated than one that just uses hashes. CSB, however, does free you at the cost of some name calling.

The only way I think it could possibly be any harder is because you have to learn another protocol. The question is does that really make it harder?

[Zorm]

In some ways writing a bot that uses BNLS is actually more complicated than one that just uses hashes.

When I first wrote csb using BNLS was a lot harder for the account and cdkey hashing because I had little understanding of what really went on during account hashing. I had always used out of the box functions that someone else wrote to do this. Also there wasn't a double hash feature on the sha-1 hashing packet for BNLS so I had to go through a lot of trouble and such to get everything working properly.