Starcraft II beta available on Battle.net

[Falcon[anti-yL]]

Damn you for getting my hopes up

[warz]

well, i never liked the channel. it had a bunch of noobs in it.

[Mystical]

lo0l @ warz

almost had me spht, i was kinda curious about the clan channel thing.

more like sittin here thinkin HUH.. azeroth? huh! lol

[Spht]

Honestly, who would believe that to be a valid packet? It appears to consist of a dword of some random-ish value that's too low to be a tick count (195Ch), followed by a WORD (11h), the stringlist, and a few more binary values? If I recall correctly, it's a standard of blizzard's to put all numeric values before the strings. It would just make more sense that way. Not to mention how it's mixed binary-string-binary, and it makes use of 2 byte numeric values which have not been seen in recent battle.net packets. It's total bullshit.

Sorry, relax, i'll try harder next time... for what it's worth, i never heard of this "standard" you speak of (preference or tradition maybe) and the fact that it contained what could be a number but was "too low to be a tick count" was a questionable thing to concern yourself with...

psh. why would spht be the first one to post about it?

You're right. if anything, that's what i figured would give it away immediately--i have a long history of keeping this kind of stuff secret

Anyway, if you spent so much time analyzing the packet, you should've noticed "sloof" (fools) with the 0104 tag

April fools

[brew]

and the fact that it contained what could be a number but was "too low to be a tick count" was a questionable thing to concern yourself with...

That value was quite odd. It was too large to be anything meaninful to chat, but not for a 'random' number, however if it really is a random number, would it not be much greater than FFFFh? Just about 99% of the time they are, tick values. I wonder if you ment it to be a statistic or something on that order (number of people testing sc2?) but then things usually like that are already included in a description string of some sort. One other possiblity is a port (blizzard inserts them into the packets in network short order as a long) but then where's the accompanying ip, and what use would that entire scheme serve? :\ The last reason could be a request cookie which blizzard likes adding to packets as of late. I'm not sure of their typical values, but if anything i bet it is *cough* the good ol' trusty tick count. Blizzard seems to use it everywhere... for ex. in IX86Mindsight it's the only thing that's sent, and in return it expects the value it's sent back to be the sum of all the bytes of the tick value (not sure, it should be though. all the stack variables were worked from esp) & FFh. Does anybody know more about it? It's exceedingly odd-- a __fastcall externed library function? some sort of struct is passed through ecx.

[Explicit]

Wow, way to overanalyze an April Fool's joke.

[UserLoser]

That value was quite odd. It was too large to be anything meaninful to chat, but not for a 'random' number, however if it really is a random number, would it not be much greater than FFFFh? Just about 99% of the time they are, tick values. I wonder if you ment it to be a statistic or something on that order (number of people testing sc2?) but then things usually like that are already included in a description string of some sort. One other possiblity is a port (blizzard inserts them into the packets in network short order as a long) but then where's the accompanying ip, and what use would that entire scheme serve? :\ The last reason could be a request cookie which blizzard likes adding to packets as of late. I'm not sure of their typical values, but if anything i bet it is *cough* the good ol' trusty tick count. Blizzard seems to use it everywhere... for ex. in IX86Mindsight it's the only thing that's sent, and in return it expects the value it's sent back to be the sum of all the bytes of the tick value (not sure, it should be though. all the stack variables were worked from esp) & FFh. Does anybody know more about it? It's exceedingly odd-- a __fastcall externed library function? some sort of struct is passed through ecx.

I figured and released how to call ExtraWork years back, and it runs based off of a 16-bit value (iirc) just like Spht's message had one.

But no, Battle.net doesn't use 16-bit values for numbers. ??

Do shut up and go away.  Thanks.

[Jailout2000]

First thing I would of done is download icons.bni and view it with the IconView program that Skywing made.

[Ringo]

First thing I would of done is download icons.bni and view it with the IconView program that Skywing made.

heh, I knew it was a fake just by looking at the screen shots (like "welcome to clan spht" along side "Channel Starcraft II beta")
But aside, just logged on west and there was no icons update. Dont really need to then view them.
I think when W3 was being 1st tested, they didnt update icons.bni for awhile after tho :p

brew: LOL

[Barabajagal]

Code Select Expand

Joined channel: StarCraft II USA-1

Not even product specific yet

[Ringo]

the demo or beta or w/e will probly be played over a differnt bnet server like w3 demo plays across 63.241.83.103 :p
That address is basicly a really basic BNCS, no chat or anything like that tho.