Time to Update BNet Docs

[Ringo]

I was just going on the factor of pinging ur self.

[Ringo]

because i beleave in power to the people
but seems as silly things like that are kept private on bnetdocs and in that 1 case wrong, this really is "Time to Update BNet Docs" :/

[edit]
seems editors dont get time to document much in reall time, why dont u open a thread so everyone can put infomation on the table in a fast/effective/selectable manner

[edit2]
What i mean by the 1st edit is, if people were working on a protocol and want to figger out a packet or find anything about it on bnet docs but the document was nonexistant, they could post what they know on the packet and some logs, then other people who also are working on the protocol can add to that packet reserch.
Soon enough that packet would be figgerd out and would be ready to go onto bnet docs, knowng the format is true and has been well test/looked into by a number of people.
This would also give people a good chance to point out things that needed to get pointed out before the packet was put on the site (to save hastle is fixing/updating existing documents)
This also gives change for the document to be typed up by who ever once the packets format is 100% known, making little effert for the document to be added to bnet docs.
People can also look on and learn how things got worked out as they are getting wored out, as well as contribute in figgering the packets format out fast.

Bnet docs would cover pritty much everything in that sence, or the board would stand as a 2nd staging post for finding info on a packet.

Reading back on this whole topic, i seem to come across abit strongly and get abit carryed away, but im asuming ppl can see my point on this?
Once ALL protocols / packets are documented, it doesnt have to be done again. And if 1 or 2 did because of changes in a patch for example, it would probly be done quickly via this board.

This was just a quick thought up idea why i was getting carryed away i guess, but i will leave it there.

on the server 0x06 packet, i did find somthing in my logs and im 99.9% sure it comes from the server, the client just returns the same dword back.
As for the dword its self, its in MS, so im asuming server side time or somthing like that, but next to the packet log i found i had wrote that i was unable to recv it on my client when trying to recv it.
It normaly gets sent to the client after it dubble sends 0x09 to test the games state its about to join.
I cant find much more on it than that, and as for the other packet, i was unable to find a log of it, but i think it was a null dworded 0x02 but im not sure.

[Arta]

hmm, several things to respond to.

D2GS is not documented at BnetDocs. I removed what was there, because it was incomplete and horribly out of date. If someone would like to contribute up-to-date information, I will happily recreate the D2GS section and make it as public as the contributor requests.

BnetDocs no longer arbitrarily witholds information. This policy was changed some time ago -- about the same time that the logon requirement was removed. The only information that is private is:

- Information that the contributor has requested remain private -- I consider this reasonable. It's their research, and thus, their choice.
- Information that is incomplete, confusing, wrong, or unconfirmed. Bnetdocs is supposed to be as authoritative as possible, so only things that are confirmed as definitely correct should be there.
- Information that is potentially damaging to Battle.net or its users. I encourage this kind of information to not be added to the site at all. None has been, to my knowledge.
- Information about messages that are no longer used (ever)

I would be happy to add a W3GS section to the site if Userloser is willing to maintain it.

The entire point of bnetdocs is and was to bring 'power to the people'. If you think this is bad, you should have seen what it was like a few years ago.

Bnetdocs is not a wiki, nor will it ever be. Wikis are a great idea -- wikipedia is among the best sites on the internet imho -- but I don't think it's appropriate for bnetdocs. There's just too much unconfirmed stuff and bullshit floating around. I have placed links on every page for people to contribute material, and I do read all those contributions and add many of them to the site. I also have plans for a new section of the site dedicated to research on topics that need it. I have tried to facilitate more regular updates by adding facilities to the site for editors, and by finding people willing to help.

Ultimately, the quality of the site will depend on the amount of material contributed. Bnetdocs is a big job, and neither I nor its editors have the time to research everything exhaustively. The only way things like the SC ingame protocol will make their way on to the site is if someone does the work and sends me the information. These are proprietary protocols, and time-consuming research is the only way we'll ever be able to understand them.

I'm not sure why PKT_CLIENTREQ was set to draft. It's possible that it's no longer used. I've made it public.

[raylu]

I know it does, but I was asking for the headers.

[QwertyMonster]

I know it does, but I was asking for the headers.

I think Arta was responding to Ringo's post. Please read back and you will find Ringo talking about your headers. Why do you want the headers anyway? (FF ID word).

[raylu]

Holy crap...Didn't notice there were 3 pages. I was responding to tA-Kane's post on the first page (http://forum.valhallalegends.com/phpbbs/index.php?topic=11717.msg114481#msg114481), so ignore that =\.

[Ringo]

D2GS is not documented at BnetDocs. I removed what was there, because it was incomplete and horribly out of date. If someone would like to contribute up-to-date information, I will happily recreate the D2GS section and make it as public as the contributor requests.

I dont mind posting my reserch on the protocol, souly in the hope it will help others (who didnt understand it already) gain a better understanding of it (and not scare them away), but seems as i used nothing but packet logs, i can only guess how close to right i am on some things..
Where would i start such a topic?
And will people be willing to contribute as well?

Ultimately, the quality of the site will depend on the amount of material contributed. Bnetdocs is a big job, and neither I nor its editors have the time to research everything exhaustively. The only way things like the SC ingame protocol will make their way on to the site is if someone does the work and sends me the information. These are proprietary protocols, and time-consuming research is the only way we'll ever be able to understand it.

Yes i agree the protocol is spamy and confusing when it comes to sequance. But this only realy relates to the game room packets.
If just a small bit of this was documented for starters, it would give a good starting point for ones goal for understanding it as well as feed interest and willingness to understand more of it.
Also as far as i remember, alot of the older clients UDP protocols that support game room are basicly exacly the same.
So this generaly would cover some other clients as well.

I'm not sure why PKT_CLIENTREQ was set to draft. It's possible that it's no longer used. I've made it public.

Iv got all clients other than 3RAW and PX3W, but i know 100% SC clients and W2 client still use this packet, if u would like me to quickly check the clients before them, that is not a problem, but i dont think much has changed.

[Arta]

Where would i start such a topic?
And will people be willing to contribute as well?

Here. That's one of the main purposes for this forum. Bnetdocs is a reference -- for information confirmed as correct -- and is not appropriate for ongoing research.

Iv got all clients other than 3RAW and PX3W, but i know 100% SC clients and W2 client still use this packet, if u would like me to quickly check the clients before them, that is not a problem, but i dont think much has changed.

Yes. Sounds good. Thanks!

[UserLoser.]

All UDP games use this message IIRC, just too lazy to go change it right now

[Joe[x86]]

Arta, the man with no life is at your service! ("...and looking for people to help...")

[Ringo]

x86] link=topic=11717.msg114681#msg114681 date=1117771811]
Arta, the man with no life is at your service! ("...and looking for people to help...")

For give me for not wanting to brake the 11th comandment - "he shall not be a greedy basterd"

[pianka]

For give me for not wanting to brake the 11th comandment - "he shall not be a greedy basterd"

That might fall under the seventh commandment, "Thou shalt not steal." -- or something...