I really have to wonder about the future of StarCraft II. Is it possible that it may have some sort of renaissance, at long last? Upon the release of all the promised features, might the situation change? I mean, it is a very unlikely situation. But as people grow more and more fatigued with WarCraft III, is there a chance they might transition at last, with all their prejudices put to rest? For example, peer to peer maps, and so forth.
banks that cannot be manipulated by the user but only by maps from the same creator. that's it
To be honest, SC2 isn't a server<->client game, it basically does all the calculate locally.
So there is always method to cheat in SC2. Just like your campaign achievements can be cheated.
That said, I think a bank on server side which can only be manipulated by its creator map is still a good idea. Tough it cannot totally prevent hacks, it would still make it harder.
Is people hacking their banks that big a deal most of the time? I could see it maybe dissuading some map creators from creating some projects but is this a fix for a current problem or a fix for potential future problems?
There have always been massive problems with banks. The filesize was always ridiculously way too small, always been buggy, you can't dynamically address them and banks are STILL BROKEN in extension mods. Sorry if this sounds ignorant I've just never experienced an issue with it so server side banks has always seemed like a much smaller issue to me.
EDIT:
Speaking of which, anyone think it's worth contacting the people who gave the speach directly about the bug which breaks banks in extension mods? They did ask for feedback about banks, though not that particular issue.
I don't think hacking is that big of a problem. Using the signature (with which I have encountered a few errors before) functionality prevents 90% of people from hacking, and encryption would stop 99% of people (obvious guesstimation). For those who can't make their own encryption, there are several libraries.
The easiest and most common way to hack banks is to simply copy someone else's (I've seen this on D3scene for Arcade map banks like here.) and that's preventable by simply including the handle ID.
Somebody bypassing all that, in addition to the banks being stored with the server, should just be flattering to the maker.
Anyway, I think the biggest plus to having server-side banks would be that the same information can be accessed from multiple computers. Most players don't know that banks are local, and expect to be able to access the same banks from any computer. It would also probably solve that awkward resetting bank issue.
tl;dr: who cares about hacking, safe information is what really matters.
That's what I always figured. If I use bank signitures, encryption, obfuscation and player handles, none of which are hard to do at all... realistically how many people are going to be downloading my map, hacking it to make it editable, reverse engineering my obfuscated code and then editing it or injecting code of their own? 0.1% of people? Does it matter that much?
Server side banks would allow people to play arcade games at a friends place or in an internet cafe and still have the same bank. I don't know how common that is but it's still a positive effect. But on the other hand I'm currently using banks as an event log so that if someones game crashes they can send me their bank file and I can figure out what the bug was and how to patch the game. That would no longer be possible with server side banks. Not that I think my issue offsets the benefit but it is worth noting that there can be positive effects of allowing people to share banks.
EDIT: forgot to mention that server side banks protects from client hardware problems or accidental deletion which is worth mentioning. Though I still think it's not that big a deal.
If they ever do come out with server side banks, I just pray that they keep the player side banks, and keep the server side banks as a side thing, or a separate set of triggers or sub editor. It may mean mass bank wipes for everyone who owns starcraft if they do not implement them properly, that is my only fear with something like this, there is also something to be said about offline play.
My view on it would be, if your are going to hack, you are going to have to put some effort into it, and those who are going to put effort into it, would not have been able to be stopped anyway. I myself cannot wait to try my hand at my first encryption when I get to that point in my project, I did not think of using the player's name in the key :)
I didn't even think about allowing for offline play. That's a really big issue too.
If they allow for a general purpose global bank for things like highscore lists then that would be a huge nightmare. If the game gets popular then you have many players trying to access and modify the one resource. Peoples changes get over written or erased, people are left hanging when the resource is unavailable etc.
Does anyone have any solution to how a problem like that could be dealt with?
I can't really think of any good solutions to the problem that don't leave peoples games hanging while awaiting write access to the file or don't involve some kind of code injection onto the server (which should never be allowed).
The only thing I can think of is if Blizzard maintained a special type of bank file that could only be interacted with through a highly restriced interface.
I didn't even think about allowing for offline play. That's a really big issue too.
If they allow for a general purpose global bank for things like highscore lists then that would be a huge nightmare. If the game gets popular then you have many players trying to access and modify the one resource. Peoples changes get over written or erased, people are left hanging when the resource is unavailable etc.
Does anyone have any solution to how a problem like that could be dealt with?
I can't really think of any good solutions to the problem that don't leave peoples games hanging while awaiting write access to the file or don't involve some kind of code injection onto the server (which should never be allowed).
The only thing I can think of is if Blizzard maintained a special type of bank file that could only be interacted with through a highly restriced interface.
a databse does all of this. there are always ppl that see hacking as a sport and who are going to (not will) hack w/e you implemented.
To be honest, SC2 isn't a server<->client game, it basically does all the calculate locally.
So there is always method to cheat in SC2. Just like your campaign achievements can be cheated.
That said, I think a bank on server side which can only be manipulated by its creator map is still a good idea. Tough it cannot totally prevent hacks, it would still make it harder.
ofc you can do that but how many sc2 players are capable of this? reading and understanding code is one thing....
The biggest problem of local banks is that players get confused about their stored data.
All battle.net related stuff is stored server side (Ladder rank, Achievements, etc.) but custom game achievements are stored locally. Players are surprised that all their progress is gone after formatting the hard drive or switching computers.
This is especially bad for RPG games where players really develop a relationship to their characters and achievements.
Also, even though hacking can be made fairly hard, it still makes it possible to backup a save-file and restoring it at any point once understanding the very basics, making concepts such as trading in Arcade games impossible to implement without major drawbacks. In addition it allows players to "roll back" to any point in time, for example after failing a risky move.
I agree that if they ever implement server side banks they should have a seperate API though.
Guys you worry so much about this banks like if you're keeping real gold in it. I mean following phrase do not meant to neglect anyone's hardwork but is there are realy so many maps on arcade that actualy worth such security awareness..? Sometimes its even hard to find moderately enjoyable gameplay. And some of maps i'd like to be able play offline like the ones with alternate controls (diablo-like) so it won't be any irritating delay, or maybe i like singleplayer. It was already discussed many times (especialy with D3) that people want to be able to play offline in any time. Even if they are always connected to network it's just psychological factor, when your computer and game copy isn't enought to play a game which annoys most people including myself.
I would say we need to differentiate between player specific banks, and map specific banks. The former are what tends to get hacked, the latter is the one that may be subject to corruption or issues.
Hacking has been/is a problem for some maps. My map already employs all the above known countermeasures (encryption, signature) though it could be improved. WE did resort to a ban list for a long time, though that is no longer permissible (although we do somewhat tread the line, by making hackers play with severe restrictions. Some of the more hardcore players see it as challenge :P)
Rolling back banks is/has been also a notable problem.
In the end, we will have to work with the Blizzard people that get hired for this and craft something that is more detailed.
As for single player: Single player is fun and interesting and totally not profitable. Most single player games are either sequels or indie games, no one is going to bet a hollywood budget on a game with no expectation of return. Blizzard kind of does with SC2, but that obviously still have multiplayer. Main thing that will have to change for single player games to be viable is companies to get comfortable with 1:5 piracy ratios or worse, and to learn to live with them (that ratio is what The Witcher 2 of 3 got, even though it has 0 drm of any kind, 1 million sold, 5 million pirated copies). Then again, such things are great arguments for DLC, dole out the game in pieces, forcing people to pay as you go, and only selling a game you know will actual sell instead of trying to go all in and praying.
Hey that is not all true about singles. How about Dragon Age, Neverwinter Nights, Mass Effect, Skyrim, The Witcher 1, Morrowind, Gothic 1,2, Risen 1,3. These are masterpieces! And about Blizzard They trap themselves with WoW. Now they just cant stop to make money cuz they need to support whole bunch of server equipment and it specialists. So single player games are still good enough despite of piracy.
Legitmate point, though nearly the entire list you presented are all sequels. The original games of those series are now 5+ years old.
As for Blizzard being trapped by WoW, they no longer are. Titan taught them that, and they flat out acknowledged that at Blizzcon when doing the Overwatch presentation that they risked being "The MMO company" not a game company. With the development of Overwatch and also small teams that do Storm and Hearthstone, they have broken out of that.
As for supporting servers, from what Blizzard has admitted, they consolidated servers down a bit due to the decrease in population/subs, and the increase with WoD crushed them. So yeah, they do have to support that stuff, but I think they got a good reason for that. Plus Battle.net and what not, plus other things, have allowed Blizzard to reduce the manpower/money to run their infrastructure, they've automated a fair bit of it by now (Unified backend with Desktop launcher and B.net 2.0 allowed for this.
Am I the only one who is wondering what focke did to get banned?
No I was kind of wondering the same thing, although I assumed it was because of his attitude.
On another note, do you guys think Blizzard will release any of the models they've scrapped over the years of development of StarCraft 2? I mean we've gotten a few over the years, like the Warhound, which they made into a campaign unit, as well as several other Terran units (we've got tons of Terran units...). And we've also gotten models that were based off of ones that have been scrapped (Mothership Core), but I'd love to see some of those old models, specifically Protoss ones, I feel like they've neglected Protoss a bit more than they have the Terran or Zerg. Granted they've made up for the Zerg a bit with HoTS, and they'll probably do the same for LoTV. Hopefully it's enough to satisfy us Protoss players. From the screenshots they've released so far, it looks like we'll get official Dragoons, and the revamped Replicant model (Disruptor). I just wish they'd give us some of their old stuff. Blizzard might not have liked it, but some people definitely could use their old models.
I also really hope they don't add a market to SC2... it'll be just about as bad as a P2W game.
And another thing, it seems a bit odd that they'd release LoTV as a standalone... do you guys think they'll give extra benefits to players who have the WoL and HoTS? I would assume they would, but idk.
At any rate, we definitely have gotten good news so far, this'll be exciting to follow.
banks that cannot be manipulated by the user but only by maps from the same creator. that's it
and general banks for map global scores
scores are truly addicting to some players, they may be a good way to incentive replayability
I really have to wonder about the future of StarCraft II. Is it possible that it may have some sort of renaissance, at long last? Upon the release of all the promised features, might the situation change? I mean, it is a very unlikely situation. But as people grow more and more fatigued with WarCraft III, is there a chance they might transition at last, with all their prejudices put to rest? For example, peer to peer maps, and so forth.
Once the Warcraft Assets hit Sc2, and the popular projects are ported over, I believe things might change.
But I still want the Arcade to go straight on the Launcher and bypass Starcraft 2 altogether. Too many mouse clicks.
To be honest, SC2 isn't a server<->client game, it basically does all the calculate locally.
So there is always method to cheat in SC2. Just like your campaign achievements can be cheated.
That said, I think a bank on server side which can only be manipulated by its creator map is still a good idea. Tough it cannot totally prevent hacks, it would still make it harder.
Am I the only one who is wondering what focke did to get banned?
That being said, I do hope that with the upcoming improvements the mapping community gets a boost and mayhaps we'll see some really nice changes.
Is people hacking their banks that big a deal most of the time? I could see it maybe dissuading some map creators from creating some projects but is this a fix for a current problem or a fix for potential future problems?
There have always been massive problems with banks. The filesize was always ridiculously way too small, always been buggy, you can't dynamically address them and banks are STILL BROKEN in extension mods. Sorry if this sounds ignorant I've just never experienced an issue with it so server side banks has always seemed like a much smaller issue to me.
EDIT: Speaking of which, anyone think it's worth contacting the people who gave the speach directly about the bug which breaks banks in extension mods? They did ask for feedback about banks, though not that particular issue.
@finiteturtles: Go
I don't think hacking is that big of a problem. Using the signature (with which I have encountered a few errors before) functionality prevents 90% of people from hacking, and encryption would stop 99% of people (obvious guesstimation). For those who can't make their own encryption, there are several libraries.
The easiest and most common way to hack banks is to simply copy someone else's (I've seen this on D3scene for Arcade map banks like here.) and that's preventable by simply including the handle ID.
Somebody bypassing all that, in addition to the banks being stored with the server, should just be flattering to the maker.
Anyway, I think the biggest plus to having server-side banks would be that the same information can be accessed from multiple computers. Most players don't know that banks are local, and expect to be able to access the same banks from any computer. It would also probably solve that awkward resetting bank issue.
tl;dr: who cares about hacking, safe information is what really matters.
@Charysmatic: Go
That's what I always figured. If I use bank signitures, encryption, obfuscation and player handles, none of which are hard to do at all... realistically how many people are going to be downloading my map, hacking it to make it editable, reverse engineering my obfuscated code and then editing it or injecting code of their own? 0.1% of people? Does it matter that much?
Server side banks would allow people to play arcade games at a friends place or in an internet cafe and still have the same bank. I don't know how common that is but it's still a positive effect. But on the other hand I'm currently using banks as an event log so that if someones game crashes they can send me their bank file and I can figure out what the bug was and how to patch the game. That would no longer be possible with server side banks. Not that I think my issue offsets the benefit but it is worth noting that there can be positive effects of allowing people to share banks.
EDIT: forgot to mention that server side banks protects from client hardware problems or accidental deletion which is worth mentioning. Though I still think it's not that big a deal.
If they ever do come out with server side banks, I just pray that they keep the player side banks, and keep the server side banks as a side thing, or a separate set of triggers or sub editor. It may mean mass bank wipes for everyone who owns starcraft if they do not implement them properly, that is my only fear with something like this, there is also something to be said about offline play.
My view on it would be, if your are going to hack, you are going to have to put some effort into it, and those who are going to put effort into it, would not have been able to be stopped anyway. I myself cannot wait to try my hand at my first encryption when I get to that point in my project, I did not think of using the player's name in the key :)
I didn't even think about allowing for offline play. That's a really big issue too.
If they allow for a general purpose global bank for things like highscore lists then that would be a huge nightmare. If the game gets popular then you have many players trying to access and modify the one resource. Peoples changes get over written or erased, people are left hanging when the resource is unavailable etc.
Does anyone have any solution to how a problem like that could be dealt with?
I can't really think of any good solutions to the problem that don't leave peoples games hanging while awaiting write access to the file or don't involve some kind of code injection onto the server (which should never be allowed).
The only thing I can think of is if Blizzard maintained a special type of bank file that could only be interacted with through a highly restriced interface.
a databse does all of this. there are always ppl that see hacking as a sport and who are going to (not will) hack w/e you implemented.
ofc you can do that but how many sc2 players are capable of this? reading and understanding code is one thing....
The biggest problem of local banks is that players get confused about their stored data.
All battle.net related stuff is stored server side (Ladder rank, Achievements, etc.) but custom game achievements are stored locally. Players are surprised that all their progress is gone after formatting the hard drive or switching computers.
This is especially bad for RPG games where players really develop a relationship to their characters and achievements.
Also, even though hacking can be made fairly hard, it still makes it possible to backup a save-file and restoring it at any point once understanding the very basics, making concepts such as trading in Arcade games impossible to implement without major drawbacks. In addition it allows players to "roll back" to any point in time, for example after failing a risky move.
I agree that if they ever implement server side banks they should have a seperate API though.
Guys you worry so much about this banks like if you're keeping real gold in it. I mean following phrase do not meant to neglect anyone's hardwork but is there are realy so many maps on arcade that actualy worth such security awareness..? Sometimes its even hard to find moderately enjoyable gameplay. And some of maps i'd like to be able play offline like the ones with alternate controls (diablo-like) so it won't be any irritating delay, or maybe i like singleplayer. It was already discussed many times (especialy with D3) that people want to be able to play offline in any time. Even if they are always connected to network it's just psychological factor, when your computer and game copy isn't enought to play a game which annoys most people including myself.
Server-side banks suck!
I want observer-side banks!
@Zolden: Go
nah there are only jewish-side banks in the world :))))
Good discussion thus far.
I would say we need to differentiate between player specific banks, and map specific banks. The former are what tends to get hacked, the latter is the one that may be subject to corruption or issues.
Hacking has been/is a problem for some maps. My map already employs all the above known countermeasures (encryption, signature) though it could be improved. WE did resort to a ban list for a long time, though that is no longer permissible (although we do somewhat tread the line, by making hackers play with severe restrictions. Some of the more hardcore players see it as challenge :P)
Rolling back banks is/has been also a notable problem.
In the end, we will have to work with the Blizzard people that get hired for this and craft something that is more detailed.
As for single player: Single player is fun and interesting and totally not profitable. Most single player games are either sequels or indie games, no one is going to bet a hollywood budget on a game with no expectation of return. Blizzard kind of does with SC2, but that obviously still have multiplayer. Main thing that will have to change for single player games to be viable is companies to get comfortable with 1:5 piracy ratios or worse, and to learn to live with them (that ratio is what The Witcher 2 of 3 got, even though it has 0 drm of any kind, 1 million sold, 5 million pirated copies). Then again, such things are great arguments for DLC, dole out the game in pieces, forcing people to pay as you go, and only selling a game you know will actual sell instead of trying to go all in and praying.
Hey that is not all true about singles. How about Dragon Age, Neverwinter Nights, Mass Effect, Skyrim, The Witcher 1, Morrowind, Gothic 1,2, Risen 1,3. These are masterpieces! And about Blizzard They trap themselves with WoW. Now they just cant stop to make money cuz they need to support whole bunch of server equipment and it specialists. So single player games are still good enough despite of piracy.
@abvdzh: Go
Legitmate point, though nearly the entire list you presented are all sequels. The original games of those series are now 5+ years old.
As for Blizzard being trapped by WoW, they no longer are. Titan taught them that, and they flat out acknowledged that at Blizzcon when doing the Overwatch presentation that they risked being "The MMO company" not a game company. With the development of Overwatch and also small teams that do Storm and Hearthstone, they have broken out of that.
As for supporting servers, from what Blizzard has admitted, they consolidated servers down a bit due to the decrease in population/subs, and the increase with WoD crushed them. So yeah, they do have to support that stuff, but I think they got a good reason for that. Plus Battle.net and what not, plus other things, have allowed Blizzard to reduce the manpower/money to run their infrastructure, they've automated a fair bit of it by now (Unified backend with Desktop launcher and B.net 2.0 allowed for this.
No I was kind of wondering the same thing, although I assumed it was because of his attitude.
On another note, do you guys think Blizzard will release any of the models they've scrapped over the years of development of StarCraft 2? I mean we've gotten a few over the years, like the Warhound, which they made into a campaign unit, as well as several other Terran units (we've got tons of Terran units...). And we've also gotten models that were based off of ones that have been scrapped (Mothership Core), but I'd love to see some of those old models, specifically Protoss ones, I feel like they've neglected Protoss a bit more than they have the Terran or Zerg. Granted they've made up for the Zerg a bit with HoTS, and they'll probably do the same for LoTV. Hopefully it's enough to satisfy us Protoss players. From the screenshots they've released so far, it looks like we'll get official Dragoons, and the revamped Replicant model (Disruptor). I just wish they'd give us some of their old stuff. Blizzard might not have liked it, but some people definitely could use their old models.
I also really hope they don't add a market to SC2... it'll be just about as bad as a P2W game.
And another thing, it seems a bit odd that they'd release LoTV as a standalone... do you guys think they'll give extra benefits to players who have the WoL and HoTS? I would assume they would, but idk.
At any rate, we definitely have gotten good news so far, this'll be exciting to follow.