I really like that show. I haven't seen all the episodes in the right order though, but I have seen most of them. It shoudl be really fun being able to watch them in the right order, and at your own leisure.
It has a comedy style similar to The Office in my opinion. A small new show I like which I been watching recently is "Less than Kind"
Jesus don't be naive.....
We all know bots and maphacks work - those have nothing to do with serverside stuff. As for 'duping' and whatever else - those videos are just supposed to get you to download a virus. Why do you think the comments are disabled? There is not such thing as a 'duping' hack.
Diablo 2 does have flaws in it's code which allows duping... you don't need the exploiting programs to prove it. The map system in the game is also flawed, which is why you can maphack. But in a design where the information is stored server-side, you are only shown the information that your character is supposed to know about (diablo 3).
Bots/farmers, obviously can't be done much about, but those aren't hacks really, just exploitation of the system.
Using battle net will prevent duping and maphacking. While it's not much of an issue on LANs really (since it's usually friends playing), LANs are not protected from that.
Various reasons that Battlenet doesn't fit the needs of some Diablo players
(in no particular order):
Battlenet is filled with map/character hackers
Battlenet is filled with cheaters
It's incredibly difficult to find reliable and fun people that fit
A promise to make D2's Battlenet cheat/hack free was never fulfilled
Battlenet's lag in multi-player is much worse than routers/LAN equipment
A group wants to play as a group free from the restrictions of an Internet connection
The fact of the matter is the same things apply to LAN as they do to battle.net, except for the bandwidth/internet, which is already obvious and one doesn't really need to mention. Any one of the people playing on LAN could cheat. In 2 different ways, on LAN you can cheat even more than closed battle net:
-characters are stored on the PC, not a server
-on certain networks, you can completely control other characters, or spy on them!
Since it's obviously unlikely friends would cheat/hack without others agreeing, or just for having fun for a bit, it's obviously not a big issue. Thing is, on Battle.net, you can just make a private room and play only with your friends. That way no cheaters interfere with you.
If you play on LAN, it's not like you can play with ANYONE else except your friends. On battle.net, you can play with your friends, plus meet new people... because as much as you may think otherwise, there are tons of well mannered people online.
The main issue, cheating, will also be removed in Diablo 3 with almost certainty. In fact removing LAN is pretty key to preventing cheating from being as easily done.
Now don't get me wrong... LAN is a nice feature... it's just I that could totally see why they may to it. Also, I don't consider diablo as important of a game to have LAN for, since it's not competitive. Games like RTS and FPS are really quite important to have on LAN because they are frequently team based games, and are all competitive. FPSes for instance, also have to have as small latency as possible, more than other types of games. Diablo, or any other RPG, isn't a game I've ever really seen played at a LAN party. I'm sure it's been done a bit, but I can guarentee it's an extreme minority.
Real time strategies and First person shooters don't have personal characters... you start from scratch each time, and use your own skill. When you have a game that uses characters, there's that easy cheating factor (granted, I know most people would keep pretty legit)
Note: Removing LAN or even offline mode is COMPLETELY independent of any monthly fees.
When it comes to hacks (of the real cheating type, not just macros, or texture/sound editing), if you make single player online only (as well as remove LAN), you then can have the game completely hack free, with the impossibility of private servers as well, as long as the server does not get leaked.
That's a really drastic step though, and I doubt it would be done for this game.
You could still have the game pretty hack free with LAN and offline single player (or just without LAN) included (FYI obviously includes map hack and dupe hack, which were just caused by bad programming on blizzard's part). With single player though, and especially with LAN, it's much easier to play pirated multiplayer, which is not something blizzard would want.
The two main problems with not having LAN support I wouldn't say applies to most people, but should still be taken pretty seriously (obviously, since they are still valuable customers):
-People with bad Internet are not able to play effectively. They would resort to LAN parties and inviting friends over.
-(a branch off the first point:) People who bring friends over for a more social experience, sorta like playing something like mario party, guitar hero, Wii, or whatever.
-(this one doesn't really count IMO) Ability to play mods. This may be supported through battle.net if there's such a thing as an "open" server, but even if that's not the case, mods aren't supported for the game anyways, so it doesn't really count.
(those are the only ones I could think of, and is not necessarily exhaustive)
While those are both prominent reasons, the gains from users buying the game instead of pirating it, outweighs the losses from the small portion of people who won't buy it only because they can't play it with their friends, because they don't have multiple keys combined with good Internet.
If it's average gamers who all own a copy, they can still play on a open LAN, assuming the host's Internet is sufficient (which it would be for an average gamer, or especially one out of a group)
They would still not be able to play on a closed LAN, such as SOME LAN parties (more and more are being open, that is connected to the 'net), but that's not a reason why a person wouldn't buy the game, since I've never heard of anyone who buys a game SOLELY to play it at LAN parties/closed LANs.
Overall, it's the logical decision to make, lowering the number of potential pirates. It's possible some hackers will modify the game to allow LAN play, but that's not a guarantee, it takes time, and it's better than allowing it from the get-go. Considering how likely it is for the game to be hacked for LAN play, I don't see why so many people are disappointed at the fact LAN play will be gone (unless you believe it won't be hacked, which I suppose it a possibility if Blizzard programs well [and perhaps if people are too lazy to hack, because I don't think it's impossible to hack no matter how well it's programmed]).
realize that diablo 2 had the /nopickup option, which makes it so you cannot pick up items accidently, unless you hold down alt. Who knows, maybe titan quest had an option like this too.
place/extract the font in your windows/fonts directory. You may also have to select "install new font" in the font folder (which can be accessed through windows explorer or the control panel)
What the hell is the difference between teleport and blink? (don't say cooldown)
If the only thing is cooldown, why bother mentioning the word blink when you just mean "add a cooldown to teleport".
Diablo2's teleport should have increased in range as the skill progressed, and should have probably got more expensive the more you invested in it. At least a small minimum cooldown should have existed for the skill, such as 1.5 seconds, starting higher before skill investment.
Another option implemented in so many games, is not teleporting through things like walls where there is no line of sight.
rhunex, you don't seem to know what you're talking about. If a system is keylogged, it only knows the password for the account that just logged in. Assuming it was a quick person who was at the computer while they were reading the fresh/live keylog (unlikely), it would still do no good, since the user's already logged in, and it would likely prevent anyone else from logging in untill he logs out, which would most likely be after a new password would be necessary to log in.
brute forcing is completely useless against a 36 character depth 12-length string. The possibilities are about 5x10^15, considering that there would be brute force protection (prevent mass login attempts in short periods of time), it would be virtually impossible to ever get close to cracking the TEMP password, which doesn't even last long...
edit: it's actually 11 digits, and we don't know if it's alphanumeric or not. Even if character depth was at 10, at 11 length, it's still strong enough with hammer/bruteforce protection.
Ovbiously, a person who has physical access to the security device or computer, could quite easily get the "master information" (token, hash, or whatever you want to call it)... that doesn't make it insecure...
The one slight issue, is if the information is kept on the user's PC, in which case it is vulnerable to some viruses which could steal the information. Problem with that though, is that that virus would use actions which are more malacious than just a keylogger, making them much easier to be blocked by the operating system (or much harder to find security holes), as well as much easier to be detected by anti-virus programs. When you get to this point, there's nothing else you can do, since it's the user's own damn fault if they use an unsecured computer.
But I'm not even talking about whatever system WoW is using. I'm saying that it may be a good idea to just have the hash (with a small program) stored on the user PC. The reason for this, is because if each game is packaged with a separate device instead, it means the price of the game up will inflate unnecessarily and people may have extras buying multiple games. It also makes it not feasible to buy the games online, which is something Blizzard seems to be moving towards now. It could still be an option to buy one separately though, of course, but shouldn't be forced. A separate device will be more secure, making it almost impossible to hack into, but to steal the hash from a computer would require more malicious code than a keylogger for instance, making it less of a viable option (due to less security holes and better anti-virus detection).
Realize that Blizzard's system may not be like RSA SecurID. I'm saying that it doesn't need to use the time. it can just use the session number (login times). Even if it was using the time though, it could use time from an internet server, which wouldn't fail.
As far as I know, the "rolling password" system uses something like a "hash". This hash is what's used to sync two systems together, and must be transmitted in a secure manner (in person, over secure line, etc. - most of the time a wired or high security wireless internet connection would be sufficient), since it's essentially the master password.
Time is not necessarily a factor, as someone mentioned, since you could just obtain a new passcode/password based off the number of uses, as opposed to the time. Even time-based could get the time off an internet server, and those are always steady.
Overall, the security may be a bit of a hassle, but it will definitely protect from brute forcing and keylogging. It will not protect from a specific virus/program on the computer that hunts down for the hash code, though (which even if it wasn't stored on the computer, it would need to be typed or transmitted to the computer, making it readable by a memory hook or keylogger).
What proof is there that the front cover image is of the dark wanderer? (I'm not saying it isn't though. It kind of insinuates it is)
All the pictures of the dark wanderer show him with a nose and flesh. In the starcraft CD preview, he had greyish looking skin and red eyes, and in Diablo 2 he looked pretty normal, with just mutated sections on his body/face and some coloration.
Regardless, if it was intended to be the Dark Wanderer, it should have been more tied to the other appearances.
Re-speccing simply DOES NOT affect replayability, since it's a user's own choice. If they thought it affected replayability, then they don't have to respec, and they can re-level some character over again, fine.
Skills will never always work as people intend/imagined. Sometimes it will not be realized until later too. Even ignoring that, even moreso, many skills may become ineffective at later difficulties, making it a regret and waste for the player. It simply does not need to be like that.
Imagine single player, where for instance in diablo 2, it is hard as hell to get good items in Hell difficulty, because everything that drops is not elite or not good magic modifiers... If a player happens to find a few items that synergize for a great build for his class, why shouldn't he be able to use them? just because he chose a skill line down the wrong path?
Respeccing is common place in games now. It does not mess up, destroy, mutate, or warp the gameplay in any adverse way! it makes people have more available time so they don't have to waste 9 hours a day playing the damn game and still have fun.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It has a comedy style similar to The Office in my opinion. A small new show I like which I been watching recently is "Less than Kind"
Diablo 2 does have flaws in it's code which allows duping... you don't need the exploiting programs to prove it. The map system in the game is also flawed, which is why you can maphack. But in a design where the information is stored server-side, you are only shown the information that your character is supposed to know about (diablo 3).
Bots/farmers, obviously can't be done much about, but those aren't hacks really, just exploitation of the system.
Using battle net will prevent duping and maphacking. While it's not much of an issue on LANs really (since it's usually friends playing), LANs are not protected from that.
-characters are stored on the PC, not a server
-on certain networks, you can completely control other characters, or spy on them!
Since it's obviously unlikely friends would cheat/hack without others agreeing, or just for having fun for a bit, it's obviously not a big issue. Thing is, on Battle.net, you can just make a private room and play only with your friends. That way no cheaters interfere with you.
If you play on LAN, it's not like you can play with ANYONE else except your friends. On battle.net, you can play with your friends, plus meet new people... because as much as you may think otherwise, there are tons of well mannered people online.
The main issue, cheating, will also be removed in Diablo 3 with almost certainty. In fact removing LAN is pretty key to preventing cheating from being as easily done.
Now don't get me wrong... LAN is a nice feature... it's just I that could totally see why they may to it. Also, I don't consider diablo as important of a game to have LAN for, since it's not competitive. Games like RTS and FPS are really quite important to have on LAN because they are frequently team based games, and are all competitive. FPSes for instance, also have to have as small latency as possible, more than other types of games. Diablo, or any other RPG, isn't a game I've ever really seen played at a LAN party. I'm sure it's been done a bit, but I can guarentee it's an extreme minority.
Real time strategies and First person shooters don't have personal characters... you start from scratch each time, and use your own skill. When you have a game that uses characters, there's that easy cheating factor (granted, I know most people would keep pretty legit)
When it comes to hacks (of the real cheating type, not just macros, or texture/sound editing), if you make single player online only (as well as remove LAN), you then can have the game completely hack free, with the impossibility of private servers as well, as long as the server does not get leaked.
That's a really drastic step though, and I doubt it would be done for this game.
You could still have the game pretty hack free with LAN and offline single player (or just without LAN) included (FYI obviously includes map hack and dupe hack, which were just caused by bad programming on blizzard's part). With single player though, and especially with LAN, it's much easier to play pirated multiplayer, which is not something blizzard would want.
The two main problems with not having LAN support I wouldn't say applies to most people, but should still be taken pretty seriously (obviously, since they are still valuable customers):
-People with bad Internet are not able to play effectively. They would resort to LAN parties and inviting friends over.
-(a branch off the first point:) People who bring friends over for a more social experience, sorta like playing something like mario party, guitar hero, Wii, or whatever.
-(this one doesn't really count IMO) Ability to play mods. This may be supported through battle.net if there's such a thing as an "open" server, but even if that's not the case, mods aren't supported for the game anyways, so it doesn't really count.
(those are the only ones I could think of, and is not necessarily exhaustive)
While those are both prominent reasons, the gains from users buying the game instead of pirating it, outweighs the losses from the small portion of people who won't buy it only because they can't play it with their friends, because they don't have multiple keys combined with good Internet.
If it's average gamers who all own a copy, they can still play on a open LAN, assuming the host's Internet is sufficient (which it would be for an average gamer, or especially one out of a group)
They would still not be able to play on a closed LAN, such as SOME LAN parties (more and more are being open, that is connected to the 'net), but that's not a reason why a person wouldn't buy the game, since I've never heard of anyone who buys a game SOLELY to play it at LAN parties/closed LANs.
Overall, it's the logical decision to make, lowering the number of potential pirates. It's possible some hackers will modify the game to allow LAN play, but that's not a guarantee, it takes time, and it's better than allowing it from the get-go. Considering how likely it is for the game to be hacked for LAN play, I don't see why so many people are disappointed at the fact LAN play will be gone (unless you believe it won't be hacked, which I suppose it a possibility if Blizzard programs well [and perhaps if people are too lazy to hack, because I don't think it's impossible to hack no matter how well it's programmed]).
If the only thing is cooldown, why bother mentioning the word blink when you just mean "add a cooldown to teleport".
Diablo2's teleport should have increased in range as the skill progressed, and should have probably got more expensive the more you invested in it. At least a small minimum cooldown should have existed for the skill, such as 1.5 seconds, starting higher before skill investment.
Another option implemented in so many games, is not teleporting through things like walls where there is no line of sight.
brute forcing is completely useless against a 36 character depth 12-length string. The possibilities are about 5x10^15, considering that there would be brute force protection (prevent mass login attempts in short periods of time), it would be virtually impossible to ever get close to cracking the TEMP password, which doesn't even last long...
edit: it's actually 11 digits, and we don't know if it's alphanumeric or not. Even if character depth was at 10, at 11 length, it's still strong enough with hammer/bruteforce protection.
Ovbiously, a person who has physical access to the security device or computer, could quite easily get the "master information" (token, hash, or whatever you want to call it)... that doesn't make it insecure...
The one slight issue, is if the information is kept on the user's PC, in which case it is vulnerable to some viruses which could steal the information. Problem with that though, is that that virus would use actions which are more malacious than just a keylogger, making them much easier to be blocked by the operating system (or much harder to find security holes), as well as much easier to be detected by anti-virus programs. When you get to this point, there's nothing else you can do, since it's the user's own damn fault if they use an unsecured computer.
Time is not necessarily a factor, as someone mentioned, since you could just obtain a new passcode/password based off the number of uses, as opposed to the time. Even time-based could get the time off an internet server, and those are always steady.
Overall, the security may be a bit of a hassle, but it will definitely protect from brute forcing and keylogging. It will not protect from a specific virus/program on the computer that hunts down for the hash code, though (which even if it wasn't stored on the computer, it would need to be typed or transmitted to the computer, making it readable by a memory hook or keylogger).
All the pictures of the dark wanderer show him with a nose and flesh. In the starcraft CD preview, he had greyish looking skin and red eyes, and in Diablo 2 he looked pretty normal, with just mutated sections on his body/face and some coloration.
Regardless, if it was intended to be the Dark Wanderer, it should have been more tied to the other appearances.
Skills will never always work as people intend/imagined. Sometimes it will not be realized until later too. Even ignoring that, even moreso, many skills may become ineffective at later difficulties, making it a regret and waste for the player. It simply does not need to be like that.
Imagine single player, where for instance in diablo 2, it is hard as hell to get good items in Hell difficulty, because everything that drops is not elite or not good magic modifiers... If a player happens to find a few items that synergize for a great build for his class, why shouldn't he be able to use them? just because he chose a skill line down the wrong path?
Respeccing is common place in games now. It does not mess up, destroy, mutate, or warp the gameplay in any adverse way! it makes people have more available time so they don't have to waste 9 hours a day playing the damn game and still have fun.