StarCraft Patch 1.12 Coming Soon

[Yegg]

Wow, Battle.net cares nothing about Warcraft II. WHen was the last time it had a major update?

[Mephisto]

Not enough people play Warcraft II for Blizzard to care.  Everyone who matters has moved onto WAR3 & WoW.  Sorry to say, but WAR2 didn't have the same impression mark as SC/BW did.

[l)ragon]

Wow, Battle.net cares nothing about Warcraft II. WHen was the last time it had a major update?

If i remember the last update to Warcraft II was labled final.

[Deception]

Hm, the only relavent thing in the patch the helps us is perhaps the ability to email reg now on Starcraft as well. Friendslist isn't really that new, you can request it already on Starcraft anyway. Good stuff for people that actually get on the client nowadays.

Obviously every product supports the friend list request packet, however only WarCraft III gets the other friend list packets for updating the list. This means that StarCraft will now support those packets.

[iago]

For different login sequences, why don't you just look at the LoginType field of SID_AUTH_INFO?  0 = old login, 1/2 = nls login.  All I'm going to have to change is the version byte and stuf.

And you have to know what logon type to send initially in SID_AUTH_INFO.

Really? Since when?  I seem to recall sending this:

Code Select Expand

(DWORD) Protocol ID (0)
(DWORD) Platform ID
(DWORD) Product ID
(DWORD) Version Byte
(DWORD) Product language
(DWORD) Local IP for NAT compatibility*
(DWORD) Time zone bias*
(DWORD) Locale ID*
(DWORD) Language ID*
(STRING) Country abreviation
(STRING) Country
(with no login type specified)

And receiving this:

Code Select Expand

[b](DWORD) Logon Type[/b]
(DWORD) Server Token
(DWORD) UDPValue**
(FILETIME) MPQ filetime
(STRING) IX86ver filename
(STRING) ValueString

In the bot I'm writing, I base the decision whether or not to use NLS on that "Logon Type", not on which game client they're using.

[dxoigmn]

Really? Since when?  I seem to recall sending this:

I thought I saw warcraft 3 sending the logon type in SID_AUTH_INFO at one time or another.  Doesn't look it does currently, and perhaps it never did :\  But your point is taken.  I like emulating clients exactly has they behave with little deviation so as to avoid any of those crazy bans they've implemented in the past.

[UserLoser.]

Really? Since when?  I seem to recall sending this:

I thought I saw warcraft 3 sending the logon type in SID_AUTH_INFO at one time or another.  Doesn't look it does currently, and perhaps it never did :\  But your point is taken.  I like emulating clients exactly has they behave with little deviation so as to avoid any of those crazy bans they've implemented in the past.

One time someone posted it supported sending 'BNET' for the protocol id, but it never did

[Zakath]

Sorry to say, but WAR2 didn't have the same impression mark as SC/BW did.

What are you, nuts? Warcraft II was a ground-breaking, universally acclaimed game. That game's success is the single biggest reason why the real-time strategy genre is the way it is today. It was PC Gamer's Game of the Year back in the mid-90s, and has been enshrined in Gamespot's Hall of Fame.

The fact that its popularity has waned does not mean the game wasn't important.

[Eric]

Maybe it'll start using the full SID_AUTH_* logon procedure like War3?

Why would they?

[iago]

Maybe it'll start using the full SID_AUTH_* logon procedure like War3?

Why would they?

The main reason they would is because it's more secure.  Unless, if course, you're using BNLS, but shh...

I think that if they were to update Starcraft to use it, they'd also update War2/D2 to use it at the same time.  I kinda doubt they will, though.

[Eric]

Maybe it'll start using the full SID_AUTH_* logon procedure like War3?

Why would they?

The main reason they would is because it's more secure.  Unless, if course, you're using BNLS, but shh...

I think that if they were to update Starcraft to use it, they'd also update War2/D2 to use it at the same time.  I kinda doubt they will, though.

ah, we think alike — my first thought was security, but then I thought about the legacy clients.  There's also DI and CHAT they'd have to deal with.

With the legacy products, the patches were supposedly final, so I find it unlikely that Blizzard would modify them and if they didn't and switched to the new login protocol, it would create account compatability issues.  There has also been no announcements for such updates.

As for chat clients: I always assumed that the reason why they never gave CHAT the ability to logon to War3 accounts was because they didn't want to compromise the increased security that War3 accounts had to offer and if that's true, it would mean the abolishment of the chat protocol altogether.

Along with the trouble it would cause Blizzard, all of the accounts would have to be upgraded to the new system which would cause trouble for the user.

I think that the upgrading of the login protocol is a nice idea in thought, but I doubt it's going to happen due to the large amount of work required to do so.

[Eric]

Hm, the only relavent thing in the patch the helps us is perhaps the ability to email reg now on Starcraft as well. Friendslist isn't really that new, you can request it already on Starcraft anyway. Good stuff for people that actually get on the client nowadays.

Well, it would give you the ability to recover accounts using SC as well as the ability to receive the actual friend's status packets (When they come online/offline, etc) which up until now, was only applicable when using War3.  For some, those changed might come in handy.

[iago]

I don't think they care about compatibility with CHAT.  They've been restricting CHAT more and more, and I wouldn't be overly suprised if they just dropped it entirely.

As for announcements, the change would be invisible for anybody on a real client (I assume they wouldn't force new accounts or a new namespace), so Blizzard would have no reason to announce it.

[MyndFyre]

As for announcements, the change would be invisible for anybody on a real client (I assume they wouldn't force new accounts or a new namespace), so Blizzard would have no reason to announce it.

It wouldn't be entirely invisible; you'd have to download a new real client. 

[iago]

As for announcements, the change would be invisible for anybody on a real client (I assume they wouldn't force new accounts or a new namespace), so Blizzard would have no reason to announce it.

It wouldn't be entirely invisible; you'd have to download a new real client. 

The login changes would be invisible.  People don't understand what a NLS login is compared to a legacy login. 

I don't see why you'd download a new client, but having a patch applied is normal for Blizzard products, and people understand them.