Staredit Network > Forums > Null > Topic: A StarCraft Petition
A StarCraft Petition
May 31 2018, 6:03 pm
By: MTiger156  

May 31 2018, 6:03 pm MTiger156 Post #1

Veteran Mapper

Quote from Grant Davies: Classic Games
In 1.18 we kinda left EUD behind, and that's because we introduced some strong anti-cheat and tamper-proof measures to prevent people from cheating in games of StarCraft, and obviously this is the right thing to do: we want to protect the integrity of the game and make sure it's a fun experience for everyone. We don't want people cheating. But it did kinda leave behind EUD, and that made us a little sad because we like the idea that people can experience StarCraft in whatever way they want to, and if that's playing EUD maps, well, that's fine. Unfortunately we cannot release a game into the public with a security hole in it, so these are the reasons why we've continually patched out EUD over the years.

Ever since this statement came out, me and Cool-Knight have been figuring a possible workaround for this situation. We have come up with an idea called "Version 1.X". This could allow Blizzard to keep optimal security in SC:R while opening up lots of EUD potential for us mappers. Here's how it works:

The current version of SC:R (currently 1.21.5) would not undergo any change. An exact copy of this version would be created and labeled (1.X). Then, Blizzard could make the following changes to the copy:
-Can only play UMS maps, and does not keep any W/L/D records or other scores (100% non-competitive)
-Unlocks all of the game's data for map triggers (except very important things like UI, Menu functions, etc)

The end result:
Version 1.X would allow mappers to utilize EUD's to their maximum potential in a multiplayer environment. Though hacking would be possible again in 1.X, there is very little to gain from it under the new rules. The main version (and competitive play) would not be affected in any way by this proposal, remaining 100% secure.




May 31 2018, 7:36 pm Pr0nogo Post #2



Creating a second build of a game without a playerbase for the benefit of a handful of people is not going to happen, at least not from blizzard's end. It would need to be a community effort.




May 31 2018, 8:00 pm Dem0n Post #3

ᕕ( ᐛ )ᕗ

It's not just hacking that could occur in this secondary version. The old method of EUD actions was a legitimate security breach, and you could actually do some malicious stuff with it if you wanted. No one would officially support this.




May 31 2018, 8:23 pm Voyager7456 Post #4

Responsible for my own happiness? I can't even be responsible for my own breakfast

Isn't 1.16.1 with EUDEnabler essentially this?



all i am is a contrary canary
but i'm crazy for you
i watched you cradling a tissue box
sneezing and sniffling, you were still a fox


Modding Resources: The Necromodicon [WIP] | Mod Night
My Projects: SCFC | ARAI | Excision [WIP] | SCFC2 [BETA] | Robots vs. Humans | Leviathan Wakes [BETA]


May 31 2018, 9:31 pm Lanthanide Post #5



I don't really get the point. Blizzard can choose to emulate any EUD actions that they want, if they put enough effort into it.

Supporting any given EUD action via emulation is going to be a far more palatable business proposition than releasing an entire new branch of the game, that they then would have to provide official support, maintenance and distribution for.



None.

May 31 2018, 9:40 pm Mithras Gnosis Post #6



What about OpenBW or SC2? Surely there are easier ways to support the functionality you are looking for than to hack an engine that is not designed to handle it?




Jun 1 2018, 5:26 pm MTiger156 Post #7

Veteran Mapper

Alright, I stand corrected. This was a silly idea. :sorry:




Options
  Back to forum
Please log in to reply to this topic or to report it.
Members in this topic: None.
[03:47 pm]
C(a)HeK -- greetings all, friends, can you check my new post? :) http://www.staredit.net/topic/18183/
[03:17 pm]
IlyaSnopchenko -- Neiv
Neiv shouted: Depending on your situation you may be able to use 18/19/20/21 to select all players in a force?
thanks! Will use the force # instead most likely, if they're in the same one
[02:26 pm]
Neiv -- Depending on your situation you may be able to use 18/19/20/21 to select all players in a force?
[02:25 pm]
Neiv -- IlyaSnopchenko
IlyaSnopchenko shouted: Anyone knows whether current player (13) is counted among allied (15) when specifying targeting flags for idle_orders in AISE?
It is not counted; the dll seems to accept a combination of multiple players there like most other extended commands, but pyai doesn't seem to allow specifying them in targeting flags
[2021-1-16. : 8:55 pm]
NudeRaider -- he gets a notification when you send him a pm
[2021-1-16. : 5:08 pm]
m.0.n.3.y -- Hey @roy just sent you a pm :D
[2021-1-16. : 4:05 pm]
IlyaSnopchenko -- Here's the idea - I want to specify idle_orders for area effect spells like Psi Storm and Plague so that the computer avoids hitting its own (13) or allied (15) troops
[2021-1-16. : 4:05 pm]
IlyaSnopchenko -- Or do I need to set a dedicated condition?
[2021-1-16. : 4:04 pm]
IlyaSnopchenko -- Anyone knows whether current player (13) is counted among allied (15) when specifying targeting flags for idle_orders in AISE?
[2021-1-16. : 1:26 pm]
Oh_Man -- Zycorax
Zycorax shouted: There's a family with one or two men named Adolf around where I live. Funnily enough, the SS used their family business' offices as their HQ in town during the occupation :]
cool tale
Please log in to shout.


Members Online: Roy