Messages

[Welcome to the forums!]

Welcome to the forums! We're glad to have you here! :) You can register your account here, then feel free to introduce yourself in the Server.Warcraft2.online board & let us know who you are on the server.

1621

Server.War2.ru / Re: Server Lag : what it is and isn't....

« on: October 17, 2016, 06:05:54 PM »

What is the logic behind "conflicts?"  There's a game up and either Player A or Player B can join the game and it doesn't lag, but if both are in, it does.

Lag,(or lack of it) is a function of the peer-to-peer UDP times... or more to the point the worst peer-to-peer route between any two players in the game

The server is not part of the game. All clients talk directly to all other clients. If you have a 2v2 game:  A and B vs. C and D.  then A and B talk to each other.... but A and C also talk to each other .... and A<-->D and B<-->C and B<-->D and C<--->D ..... (did I leave anyone out?) .... so they ALL talk directly to each other.

OK so then we factor in what I was saying about routing in the lat trick post above:

The underpinning logic of the internet, and therefore the internet protocol is that any router can get a packet intended for any address and send it in the right direction to get there... and the next router (server... whatever) will do the same, until the packet eventually gets where its going.

The routing tables in most home routers are pretty simple, they mainly just say "anything that isnt a local address send HERE" with "local address" being defined as whatever your local network is (often 192.168.X.Y or 10.0.0.X combined with a sub-net mask ) and "HERE" being the gateway address supplied by your ISP, which is whatever the IP address is of their server that they are selling you access to....

When you get to your ISP's server it has its own routing table which may or may not just forward everything to a central node, but at some point there will be a bunch of rules like "everything from 0.x.x.x to 127.x.x.x send to server A" and "everything from 128.x.x.x to 255.x.x.x send to server B" ... this is a simple example, there will most likely be a heap more routing rules than that. And those servers will have their own routing tables which will define, for them, the quickest way to send all packets based on their IP addresses... these can also change dynamically depending on what time of day it is and how much load various other servers are under. And of course these servers will have rules telling them to send packets with YOUR ip address back to your ISP's server, which then forwards them to you.

Everybody forwards everybody's traffic... and everybody sends it via whatever route is defined in their routing tables .... in theory this is the "fastest route from A to B" but there may be a variety of other factors at play, i.e. social/political/monetary... who knows? All you know is that you send the info to your ISP, it picks another server to forward it to, which in turn forwards it to another ... etc., until it reaches the destination.... You can check this out on one of the "Ip tools" type websites that does a "traceroute".... this will show you the list of servers that form the link between you and another given server.

SO... back to our 2x2 game... so say, for example, player A is in AUS, player B is in GBR, player C is in USA and player D is in UKR.... perhaps player A can talk to B,C and D fine, same for player B, in fact everyone can talk to everyone else, EXCEPT... somewhere between player C and player D, one of the servers chooses to route the traffic through some shit-box old crappy server in Iceland because they don't pay as much tax that way (or WTF ever). It may even be in one direction only i.e. D can send traffic to C very fast, but when C sends traffic to D there's a problem... (you remember that "ping" times are round trip times so a problem in either direction will show up) ... maybe the guy programming the routers in Iceland was married to a Ukrainian and she ran off with the guy next door, so he said,"screw you and yours" and downgraded all traffic to UKR to the lowest possible priority.... who knows....

Of course these things aren't as simple as that example... it's more likely to do with rival companies downgrading each others' traffic... or a combination of all sorts of things... but the point remains that what causes lag is the speed and reliability of round trip UDP data between all players, and the actual route that the data goes through from player A->B is different from A->C, in fact it may even be different from B->A and all it takes is one crappy or overloaded server to be the "weakest link in the chain" and cause a crappy connection. When it happens that by virtue of whatever happens to be written in the routing tables of a bunch of servers wherever in the world, that one or more of these weak links ends up in the route that data is sent from one player to another, those two players will "conflict".

It may be only between two specific players, but from what I have seen, certian players seem to have problematic connections and will tend to conflict with a few people. One way to fix this *COULD* be to change the route by using a fast proxy or VPN. A VPN establishes a connection over HTTPS between the client and the VPN provider, from where the data would most likely be routed through a different set of servers to the other players. Many servers give priority to this type of traffic so it could even end up being a faster connection, ..... or bloody aweful lol, its a matter of experimenting to find what works

1622

Server.War2.ru / Re: Server Lag : what it is and isn't....

« on: October 17, 2016, 04:59:07 PM »

What is the logic behind the lat trick?  Two people who do not have port forwarding set up can still host a 1v1 with each other.

The info is all there .. but it's a bit scattered (like me;) so...

With regard to lat trick:

once you have sent an outbound packet over given port to a given address, the IP accepts that your client machine is exchanging data over that port with that external address, so it thereafter routes all incoming traffic to that client.

When you try to join a game, the server supplies the host's IP Address and port, then your client tries to send a UDP datagram to the host but...

The problem is with that very first "I want to join" message that your client sends to the game host. If the host's game port isn't routed to the correct end-point then this message turns up from an unknown address on an un-defined port, and the IP routing (quite rightly - or you would be vulnerable to all sorts of attack) discards the packet. However, if the host has already said "send me all the packets on port 6112 (or whatever port) then the packet is forwarded to the host's computer

So player A is hosting and player B tries to join.  At this point you have player B has sent an outgoing UDP datagram to A, but A's routing just says "WTF is a 6112??" bugger that.

Then the positions are reversed so then player A is sending outgoing UDP on port 6112 to player B, and B has already sent one the same to A so at this point player B's IP routing could say "ok then i'll send that to (player B's computer's local IP address) because we have already sent one of those out to that other address".  It may take a few goes back and forth depending on the actual logic in your router's firmware.

The thing is that routers are not designed to just blindly forward everything that the outside world throws at them to your computer... you can tell them to if you want, this is called DMZ ("de-millitirized zone"), but you still have to tell the router which computer is the DMZ, because, and this is the other point, they are also not designed to have only one computer attached to them... but really you just want to tell it to send you port 6112 traffic, not ALL trafic. The underpinning logic of the internet, and therefore the internet protocol is that any router can get a packet intended for any address and send it in the right direction to get there... and the next router (server... whatever) will do the same, until the packet eventually gets where its going.

When you use your browser to pull a web address, your browser initiates a TCP connection with the remote server (over port 80 for plain http). Because this connection started at your computer and went out, and the connection is maintained by the TCP protocol, your router automatically sends back the server's reply over this already established connection that your computer started.

When somebody tries to join a game you have hosted, they send a UDP packet to your external IP Address, there could be any number of devices connected to your router, or being something that originated externally, it could be malicious, it is an unknown, and without specific instructions, like "send all udp traffic on port 6112 to local IP address 192.168.0.4" (this is forwarding the port) it will just discard the packet.

With the "lat trick" you are manually forcing each client to send UDP traffic to each other over a certian port and simulating a "transaction" like a TCP connection, which "tricks" or "trains" (depending on how you look at it) the IP layer into forwarding the traffic to the desired endpoint.

Hope this was a bit more understandable.... I'll do a seperate post on conflict

1623

Server.War2.ru / Server Lag : what it is and isn't....

« on: October 17, 2016, 03:19:40 PM »

So the server is lagging a bit at the moment. Sounds like a good time to talk about general lag issues.

Here's what I know about the way WC2 and battle.net worked 15 years ago... we're now using a PvPGN server and an AH server also, so things could be different now. If I'm wrong about any of this stuff, please reply and add your info.... but AFAIK it's like this:

First there's 2 types of network traffic you need to know about:
(don't worry it's really not that technical...)


   UDP: User Datagram Protocol
                  and
   TCP: Transmission Control Protocol


The difference is this:
- TCP makes a connection between 2 computers, in this case a player's computer and the server. Once a TCP connection has been made, the TCP protocol guarantees that every message either of them sends to the other is successful. It checks, and if there's a problem, the message is sent again, until it goes through, or eventually the connection is abandoned, whereupon both ends will be notified that the connection has failed.

On the other hand..
- UDP does not do this at all. If one computer sends a UDP packet to another, it has no idea if the other computer receives it or not. Some program running on the other computer can send back a message confirming the packet arrived, if it wants, but that is not part of the UDP protocol (whereas it is built into TCP).

There's also another 2 terms I'm going to use a bit which are:


   IPX: Internetwork Packet Exchange
               and
   IP: Internet Protocol


- IPX is just an old network protocol that is no longer used. Although internally different, as far as the descriptions above go, IPX can be considered the same as UDP. It was popular in the late 80's and early 90's but by '96 it was on the way out and was not widely supported after that.

- IP is the basis of the internet. It's that base layer that is sending packets from one "IP Address" to another. You have probably heard the term "TCP/IP" before, well this is the "IP" part. By this terminology the UDP traffic could be called "UDP/IP" because the "IP" protocol is operating beneath both of them. Often these days people say "IP" when referring to an IP Address, however here I'm talking about the protocol itself. When I'm talking about an IP address I say "address".


So... going back to 1996 and Warcraft II:Tides of Darkness when the internet was still in it's infancy, the guys at Blizzard used a network protocol they were familiar with to implement the pre-battle.net multiplayer games. That was IPX. For those of you old enough to remember Kali this is where that fits in. Kali is an IPX emulator, so it allowed people to play multiplayer games based on the old IPX protocol on that new wonder of the modern age "The Internet!".

But the point is this: the networking side of the game engine has remained pretty much unchanged from 1996. When Blizzard released Warcraft II:Battle.net Edition in 1999, they included all sorts of cool new stuff related to battle.net: server channels, messaging, friend lists etc.., and of course the most important thing - the ability to make a game or join a game. All these battle.net features worked over a TCP connection. This connection is established when you logon to battle.net and (being TCP) it maintains itself, and guarantees the integrity of all messages passed through it.... for example unless the connection fails and one of you is actually dis-connected from the server, a /m to another player NEVER fails, even with bad lag it will still go through eventually.

If you make a game, your client (wc2 program) will talk to the server over this TCP connection and tell it the name of your game and other details. If click the JOIN button the server will talk to your client over this TCP connection and give it a list of games. This list includes the game name, the pud, the settings, and most importantly the IP address of the host.

It is at THIS point in the process that battle.net ceases to be part of the equation. When you join a game, the internals, for the most part are still exactly the same as they were in 1996, the only difference is that instead of using the old IPX protocol, which was not supported by the internet, BNE substituted the UDP protocol, which was supported. This, however is just wrapping your sandwich in cling-wrap instead of tin-foil, its still a BLT inside. When you join a game (or try to!) you start sending peer-to-peer UPD packets the host's client, which then sends you a list of addresses for the other clients already in the game, and sends your address to them. To successfully join your client needs to make UPD "connections" to all of the other clients in the game.

I say "connections" in quotes, because of course UDP (or IPX) does not make connections it just blindly sends packets and hopes they arrive. Your client (the wc2 program) IS, of course keeping track of what packets arrive, and if one connection is losing packets you will see it on the lag screen, or as we know if YOU are the person with the bad connection you will often see several or all of the other players listed on the lag screen, because from your client's point of view packets are missing from lots of other clients.

So this is how WC2 games work over a network, with all of the clients all firing UDP packets at each other. So what about the server? Well you trusty TCP connection to the server remains in place, but this connection does not have anything to do with the game. It can't cause game lag. The only thing that can cause game lag is problems with the UDP traffic between the clients.

The BNE client knows to send any chat that starts with a "/" to the server over this TCP connection and the server will then process that message or reply with a WTF? and your client will say "Unknown Command". If the server is lagging it can take 5 or even 10 seconds to get a response. Can you imagine if it took 5 or 10 seconds for every update in the game? There's just no way.... that would be beyond bad lag. Generally speaking for a game not to have annoying lag, the clients needs to update each other every 1 second or so, ideally much less. That means every client needs to be able to send and receive a UPD packet to/from every other client no later than once a second.

BUT, the clients do not, as part of the game send any UPD packets to or receive any UDP packets from the server. The only time this happens is when you first login to the server, it does a check to see if you can send/receive UDP packets over port 6112. The reason this will usually succeed even though you may still be unable to host is to do with the way your networking infrastructure (modem/router/network card/drivers etc.) handles traffic. In short, once the TCP connection is established with the server, the underlying IP "Internet Protocol" automatically sends any traffic from the server to the client at the other end of the connection, regardless of if it is TCP, UDP or whatever.

This is how the "lat trick" works if you haven’t got your game port properly routed. You have a TCP connection to the server, which gives you the IP address of the host. So your client sends a UDP packet to the host saying "I want to join", but at this point you there hasn't been any communication whatsoever between the two clients. Any channel chat or /m messaging is relayed through the server, so if the game host hasn't got the game port "opened" (properly routed to the client) then when a random UDP packet turns up from some random client, the IP has no idea what to do with it. But if you alternately make games, then try to join each others' games, you can train the IP running in your hardware to associate traffic over that port with a certain IP address.

But if you can't get UDP packets through to the server when you log in it will give you a warning message saying you won't be able to join games. It will, however still let you log in and chat/message/see the game list etc... everything that happens over the TCP connection. If you join like this you will have the grey "bot" icon which has an unplugged power cord on it.

So back to joining a game. Why can you join a game even if you haven’t got your game port properly routed? Why is it just when you host? This is all IP layer stuff, like the "lat trick" above. The problem is with that very first "I want to join" message that your client sends to the game host. If the host's game port isn't routed to the correct end-point then this message turns up from an unknown address on an un-defined port, and the IP routing (quite rightly - or you would be vulnerable to all sorts of attack) discards the packet. However, if the host has already said "send me all the packets on port 6112 (or whatever port) then the packet is forwarded to the host's computer, where the wc2 program already has a socket open listening for UDP traffic on port 6112.

Once that first message has gone through, the host gives the client a list of addresses for the other clients in the game, and also gives all those other clients the address of the new client joining, and everyone starts sending UDP packets at everyone else.... and once you have sent an outbound packet over given port to a given address, the IP accepts that your client machine is exchanging data over that port with that external address, so it thereafter routes all incoming traffic to that client.

But, friends and fiends, no amount of server "lag" will make your game lag.... nope, sorry... and here's the proof: what happens when the server crashes during a game? You get a message saying "connection to battle.net lost". This is the TCP connection timing out. As we know TCP connections are "guaranteed" by the TCP protocol. It is internally sending back and forth packets to keep the connection alive and verify that any communication has reached its destination, until your client fails to receive any response from the server for a pre-defined amount of time, when your TCP drivers give up and notify the client that the connection has been broken.

But when this happens does the game end? No, because the server isn't part of the game, once a game has started you could blow up the server with an RPG and it wouldn't stop the game. It stops any messaging etc., any command starting with a "/" but the game continues. When the game ends, even if the server is back up and running you don't go back to the channel, you are back in the pre-connection part of WC2, because the wc2 client wasn't written to automatically attempt to re-establish a TCP connection with the server (this is inherently unsafe as it would have to be storing and re-transmitting your password without your knowledge).

So if there is server lag, it can be slowing down/lagging all the stuff that involves the server: logging in, chatting, messaging, your friend list, getting the game list etc., but it doesn't lag games. Perhaps in theory if there is server lag the TCP service is generating a little bit more network traffic saying "hello? can you hear me?" a bit more often, but if your network is operating on such a tiny amount of bandwidth that it would even notice this then I would expect that you would already be having all sorts of problems.

So what causes lag? Lag,(or lack of it) is a function of the peer-to-peer UDP times... or more to the point the worst peer-to-peer route between any two players in the game. There are 2 factors in "worst". Obviously speed is one, but even worse is actual packet loss, where a packet is sent from one place and and just never turns up at its destination. A crackly phone line can do this - or a recalcitrant server (not the game server - just some random internet server). This sort of thing is what causes "conflicts" between two players, that otherwise tend not to have problems. This is because *somewhere* in-between those two end-points is a server that is not doing the right thing with UDP traffic... or perhaps with all traffic to/from certain locations ... or maybe it's just plain overloaded.

So while we're on the subject, what's with "/ping"?
The "/ping" or "/p" command is not a battle.net command, it's one of the extra features built into PvPGN (that's the software that runs the war2.ru server - it's a battle.net emulator). "Ping" is a basic networking feature which just sends a packet from one computer to another which asks the remote computer to send it back. The "ping" time is the time it takes for the message to go to the remote location, get processed, and return to where it came from. Usually this is repeated a number of times and an average time is reported.

As we know, when you first login to the server, your /ping will be reported as "0". It appears that checking client ping times is either averaged out over number of checks over a reasonably long period of time, or (more likely) it is a task that the server deems to be low priority and schedules it to be done some time when it is twiddling it's thumbs with nothing better to do. So you wait a few minutes and the server reports a time in milliseconds. Try this for fun: on windows go start-->run then type in "cmd"[ENTER]. This will bring up a DOS style command prompt. Then type "ping google.com"[ENTER]. You can do the same thing from a UNIX machine.

The ping reported by the "/ping" command is the round-trip time from server.war2.ru to your client and back again. It does not necessarily have anything at all to do with game lag, although an excessively high number here can be indicative of a network issue. But as we know, lag is related to peer-to-peer UDP times, connection time to the server has nothing to do with it... although if you have a really slow connection you will also have a high server ping time, but a high server ping time does not necessarily mean you have a slow connection.

Another interesting thing here is that right now, when the server is having some genuine lag issues it is reporting my /ping as 247. This is extremely low for me (being in AUS). Normally my /ping is reported at 500+. It's just conjecture, but it could be the result of the server's host provider throttling TCP traffic. As pinging is a "control message", operating on the ICMP protocol - which is usually prioritised by servers, if the connection is being throttled at the TCP layer, it could leave other IP layer traffic with extra bandwidth, hence faster ping times... or maybe they just switched to a host in AUS?...nah lol.

(((EDIT: more likely by the time I wrote this much, iL had already fixed the server issues so it was all nice and speedy, but at the time I assumed it was still having issues, as I was writing not playing)))

So what's with the green/yellow/red bars on the game list and next to each player when you join a game? These are ping times, but are very different ping times. The bars in the game list is the ping time between the host and the server. When you join a game and are waiting - before it starts, as we know, at this stage it's all about peer-to-peer UDP traffic, so those bars are the ping time between you and that other player. If you see one player go red and the rest stay green, its probably their problem. If you see all players suddenly go red, kick your GF off facebook  


IS ANY OF THIS WRONG?....or does some part of it just seem wrong?.... post a reply and tell me what you think!

....and for the extra bonus points... WHO WAS PAYING ATTENTION? - What small change could have been made to the battle.net protocol to eliminate the whole "opening ports" to host a game issue? ? ? I'll post the answer to that later when everyone has just said "FFS, doesn't that nerd ever shut up?" and completely ignored this post.

1624

Server.War2.ru / Re: who is this swws idiot?

« on: October 17, 2016, 10:05:05 AM »

hmmm... How about a vote command for giving temp mutes/gameban? Set the number of required votes highish so people have to hound their inactive friends to come online to help mute the troll, and maybe play a few games while they're at it

i'll vote for this command and not being the one to impliment it

1625

Server.War2.ru / Re: who is this swws idiot?

« on: October 14, 2016, 06:44:54 PM »

I very much dont like that.  It's just advertising that these people can hack and are still allowed on the server.  In a way it's condoning hacking more than any other thing we can do

Valid point.

Also worth considering is: looking at what we (the community) want to get out of it. Do we really want to ban everybody who has ever used a hack?.... I'm just guessing, but I think that might make getting a game of 1s tricky and 2s near impossible.

I can remember the first time I logged on to USEAST and there was 100k people online playing wc2. It was before stupidface or instatwit or any of that crap. It was awesome and unprecedented in the history of the human race - no exaggeration necessary.

How many players now?... exact figures aside I think it's safe to say the community has downsized a wee bit. Personally I think we need everyone. Despite what I might have said when I'm annoyed because some idiot has been wasting my time with that crap, I don't really want the hackers to never come back, I just want them to stop bloody hacking. Same with the haters - which I personally find just as bad - I just want them to stop hating. Man I hate haters soo much ...... lol nvm

Anyway, I think most of us would agree with most of that; but what I'm getting at is this: one of the most effective modifiers of human behavior is peer group pressure (I'd rate it a close third behind the baseball bat and naked breasts, but as far more versatile than either of them ) I think that perhaps we, as a community, need to modify the way we respond to inappropriate behavior. Maybe just a slightly different angle.

I don't claim to know exactly what that angle is, ofc the turd icon thing was just something that popped into my head while I was reading this topic and made me laugh. But it did make me think about people responding differently to the stinkers in question....

I think the current system usually goes something vaguely like this:
( no slight intended towards anyone here - just bunch of made up stuff to illustrate the point at the end)
      1) [hX]AssWipe goes around using lameass trojan-ridden hacks.
      2) People start to notice suspicious things about his gameplay.
      3) JohnPlayer asks for a ss [hX]AssWipe dodges.
      4) JohnPlayer starts crying and name calling and demanding blood.
      5) Admins think OMFG John is sooking on about another bloody ss, will he ever STFU?
      6) By now the turd has logged in as h4x1n4t0r and he's all "hi im new, i used to play yrs ago"
      7) Soon others who are less prone to sooking start to notice there's a stinky waft in the air.
      8 )People start to get banned from games on suspicion of being cah-cah.
      9) Forum posts, general conversation and personal accounts start to gain momentum.
      10) Amins realise there's a real problem and start to keep an eye on the turd and his akas.
      11) Endless hours of bitching and accusing in games and channel.
      12) Eventually someone gets a smoking-gun ss with /p and something has to be done.
      13) Right when the thing reaches a head, the turd gets one of his favorite names banned... 

Then what happens? He goes away? Fat chance... No. He loses the argument, and has to log on as x-DW-x)LittleBoPeep( for a while and keep his mouth shut. He gets some time to listen to JohnPlayer carry on about how he knew the turd was stinky and reflect on how he got caught, and how to avoid it. While he's skulking, he gets sneakier. Eventually people may occasionally catch a wiff of poo, but mostly can't tell exactly where it's coming from. Resentment and suspicion start to nag at people... and on it goes.

I think by now that generally, the type of people who were maybe tempted to do the wrong thing, but were embarrassed enough by their punishment to decide it wasn't worth it, have all given up - they don't do it anymore. The people who still do do it, have have probably been banned before under a few different names and keep doing it... more of the same won't stop them.

And yes tk, good point - there's aways one or two of these sad individuals in any crowd:

just a guy who didn't get enough attention as a kid so he looks for it other places... just in the form of negative attention. The more attention he gets, the more he wants..

I've heard talk about it but I've never had much to do with the martin name, but this negative attention seeking does remind me someone else who gets a fair bit of coverage on this forum... these are difficult cases.

Anyway, I think what really tickled me when I pictured some hacker strutting around wearing a big steaming turd badge and not realising while everyone else had a laugh and made in jokes at their expense... man there's something off around here - can u smell that? ...was that it's a different response, it breaks the endless hack-sneak-deny-accuse-ban-blah-blah-omg cycle and puts the whole thing in an entirely new context...and for map-hacking it does have a touch of poetic justice about it.

But like I said, that was just a whimsical notion. Not something I put any serious thought into ( although I have to admit, I'm still not hating it lol). I really don't know what the answer is, but I do think we need a slightly different angle that allows the community as a whole to demonstrate how they feel about stinky people, instead of just hurling judgment and abuse.....
                     ....... because we all know by now that doesn't fix the problem.

1626

Server.War2.ru / Re: who is this swws idiot?

« on: October 13, 2016, 06:30:43 PM »

Would you rather play him and not know who he is

Actually, now you mention it this seems like the ideal use for channel icons. Just give them a big steaming turd icon, and be done with it.

...better still mod wc2ce so that "The Turd" won't display on their own client but everyone else sees it.

Now there's a project for a rainy day MUHAHAHAHAHAHA xD

1627

Server.War2.ru / who is this swws idiot?

« on: October 13, 2016, 10:57:01 AM »

Is this one of yamon's akas? or is it crybaby? or did he just drink the koolaid? cos I've seen the name around, but never really had much to do with this one before...





WOOT!
Post the replay, then everyone can see me legit pwning ur ass.

i'll "just wait for bann", but excuse me if I don't hold my breath.
moron was logged by the time I got back from posting SS

I posted 4 of then (the last one's my fav;)







... and yeah I killed off the noob early then took his spot and had the advantage... no strategy there MUST BE HACKING!

1628

Website & Forum Discussion / Re: WTF I RECEIVE A WARNING AGAIN?

« on: October 13, 2016, 08:44:21 AM »

WTF ?? ANY EXPLANATION?

ooo! is this like a pop quiz? is there i prize?

i guess: for being a colossal dick

am I close?

1629

Server.War2.ru / Re: Yamon's crap

« on: October 05, 2016, 11:35:16 PM »

Quote from: ~oE~ on Today at 03:34:59 PM

    Yamon is no stranger than anyone else on this forum. Hes kinda strange but who isnt.

    To me the funniest thing about yamon is if you actually watch his stream..whenever he loses, he drops one of two responses:
    1. "Im too rusty" - when hes played like 1000 games in the past few weeks probably.
    2. "Lag" - when lag had nothing to do with anything.

    lol

300 games in a year but okay

So not even 1 game a day? weird.... and you've been on at least 2 smurf accts today already.... but hey, if Yamon says it, it must be true.

1630

Server.War2.ru / Re: Yamon's crap

« on: October 04, 2016, 11:08:45 PM »

! No longer available




yep...... bugger all.... lol

1631

Server.War2.ru / Re: Yamon's crap

« on: October 04, 2016, 08:53:56 PM »

Whatever. Each to their own and a bit of playful banter has always gone on between custom players and bne purists.

There's a difference between that and a full-on 24/7 hatefest. I got sick of it. Thats why I

did something about it.

1632

Server.War2.ru / Yamon's crap

« on: October 04, 2016, 07:13:50 PM »

OK. So I skimmed through a few replies about this bullshit and it appears a few people are actually taking it seriously... so I'll give it a few more words, which is a few more than it deserves.

Yamon is an annoying twit. (sorry, trying to come up with appropriate description). AFAIK he only plays gow and pours derision on anyone playing chop or other customs. Whatever. Each to their own and a bit of playful banter has always gone on between custom players and bne purists. But yes he's a bit annoying. I have also known him on a number of occasions to join chop games to deliberately wreck them or just leave so we have to restart. This is childish and destructive. Presumably it's fun for him when he can't get a gow game and is bored. He also talks a lot of crap and seems to think hes all that and a bit more because he's a regular gow player - not my scene but I did hear one pro (who will go un-named) comment that "all Yamon can do is rush grunts".... you guys would know more about that than me.

I really don't give much thought to what simple concepts float around in Yamon's largely vacant head, he is nothing more than a minor annoyance that I run into occasionally, however the other day I was playing gow - I do sometimes even though I'm not very good at it. As it was, on this occasion I was actually only playing because there were peeps in the channel who wanted a game and they asked if I could make, so I said NP.

So. The annoying twit was in the game - being annoying - and a twit... then he starts carrying on about my lusting. He is obviously fishing in a painfully simple and obvious fashion - maybe because I'm reasonably fast at lust and that didn't fit with someone who isn't a gow pro in his tiny brain - but who knows. So he's all like "how do you do that?" - like he hasn't been playing for years and seen a million people lust ... he may even be good at it himself, or does he just rush grunts all game? idk .. or care... point is that it was obviously a very lame, very sad fishing attempt and I gave it the kind of response it deserved.

I'm pretty sure my first answer was something like, "I use my dick" followed by a few similar remarks, mainly just trying to ignore the annoyance. So the game ends, we're back in the channel and sure enough he's still fishing... eventually I couldn't resist and I threw him a line of my own.

THAT'S HOW YOU DO IT NOOB xD ----->   One cast - one bite - one catch.

....bloody thing's still flapping around and doesn't even know it's in the frying pan with a twist of lemon.

Yes. I told him a piece of information, "there's a double clicker in the downloads section server page"

Here's a few more for you:

"The population of China is approximately 1.38 billion"
"The capitol of Iceland is Reykjavik"
"Yamon is a gullible and annoying twit"

Those 3 are slightly different because they're all true, and as it turns out the double click HACK is no longer posted. I only knew it existed from a previous forum thread, and am mildly pleased, but mostly disinterested that it has been removed. I assume from the description that its a rather crude little app that simulates extra mouse-clicks... well whoop de la. That's an age further down the evolutionary ladder from the sort of hacks that really concern me.

It pains me to actually have to say it but i will: I have never used this "double clicker" app. I have never even 'checked it out'. I have never run it on a computer, with or without WC2 running, let alone used it online..... and I have never been tempted or even vaguely interested in using it. You can find information about much more sophisticated macros people have used to lust simply by searching this forum - and I have never used any of that stuff either.

I find Yamon's behavior particularly saddening as he doesn't play the maps I usually play, and I rarely play gow and suck at it too much to be a genuine threat to any experienced player. There was no perceived injustice that disadvantaged him, he just thought he saw an opportunity to get the nasty gremlin out of the box and spread some hate. I think this community is finally starting to breathe a bit easier with the AH finally starting to get the ugly accusation monkey off its collective back, and it would break my heart to see it sliding backwards.

This is what annoyed me enough to feed him the rubbish about some shitty app that was in the downloads section in the first place. I expected that if he was dumb enough to make an issue out of it people would say “so what” because it wouldn't be on the available for download if it was illegal in the first place. I certianly didn't expect anyone else to actually take his crap seriously.



IMHO the success of the AH has proven beyond a doubt that it as at the very least a big part of the right kind of solution and that the horrendous hate-fest of accusation was itself the worst part of the problem.

1633

Server.War2.ru / Re: Antihack frontend, step 2

« on: October 02, 2016, 12:49:58 PM »

Hi all,
I know this is a bit old thread (and I also haven't read it all) but I would like to post a suggestion for the Anti Hack.
I believe that a /ping like command for the server which reports the AH status would be a great addition.
The command (lets call it /ahstatus or /ah) could be used in 3 ways.

1) /ahstatus [user]
example: /ahstatus igognito
Igognito AH (10sec)

2) /ahstatus (inside a channel)
returns the results of each player in the channel

3) /ahstatus (inside a game)
returns the results of each player in the game

This is similar behavior with /ping.
If this is hard to provide then maybe you could make only 1 functionality that would be to present the results as in:
http://server.war2.ru/status/

regardless where you actually ask the command.

Currently, I check the status on my tablet but it would be cool if I one could do: /ah in a game instead of /ping and then do the SS.
Especially if the /ah also returned the server time stamp.

Cheers

I could perhaps help with this, this is just based my assumptions as i didn't really have anything to do with the final AH version but here's the situation:(if any of this is wrong and somebody who knows more about the current AH than I do notices then please tell me thx)

First as far as functionality goes, thats a nice idea and would be a good command to have.

But I think it is very unlikely to happen and here's why:

When you do     /ping     or     /f m     or      /squelch Dellam         or any of those commands you are talking to the PvPGN server, and its replying to you with information.
 
PvPGN is an open source 3rd party emulator for Blizzard's battle.net gameservers.
So it just acts like battle.net and if you change the gateway address to point to the pvpgn server instead of bnet the client just thinks its talking to battle.net. Despite being open-source I would assume that our server would be running on a precompiled stable release build or maybe a version iL compiled for the job, but regardless its a fair amount of code and it would be unlikely that anybody would be routinely modifying and recompiling the server. If they were it would probably be a whole lot less stable than it is.

If (and its a big if) the admins just happened to have an appropriate build environment set up to recompile the server, and felt comfortable about dong that, then it probably wouldnt be hard to add extra server commands ....  but then there has to be a routine somewhere that retrieves the data that you want returned for your query......BUT the PvPGN server doesn't have the antihack data. The AH server has that.

They are seperate processes, which could be running on the one computer, or even in different countries idk The AH server talks to ur war2ce client and gets a regular update of whatever info it is checking up on. It then regurgitates this information either already in html or in some other format that can be converted to html as it goes to be served as the status page. They are two totally seperate systems (AFAIK)

so u either have to mod the client to monitor the chat communication and look for its trigger then contact the AH server with a request for the spcified info, then collect the returned info and somehow patch that into the wc2 onscreen text display routine

... or recompile the PvPGN server from source after adding in the extra commands and a way to retrieve the data either from the AH server itself or possibly from its output for the status page.

Any way you look at it, its a reasonable amount of complication, quite a bit of work plus the risk of possibly destabaizing one or both of the servers in the process... all for more conveniant access to information we already have access to.

 I like the idea of the commands but I suspect implimenting them might not be a popular proposal

1634

Server.War2.ru / Re: Lambchops admits to using macros

« on: October 01, 2016, 07:31:25 PM »

BAHAHAHAHA

Hook, line and sinker.

gg no re

xD

1635

Mods & Development / Re: Color palettes in channel, tilesets, screenshots, etc.

« on: September 30, 2016, 10:25:08 PM »

........from looking in my paint shop they are 8bit.(my grp's)

wanna play with tiles they are .raw but out of order.

i take that back i can write to them using .raw but i still cant read them,the header is missing wonder what happen if you put a header back on it....perplexing

Hey mate. Sorry, missed this post, thanks for the info - will have a look at this stuff again soon, very interested but flat out right now.

Careful lamby, you're showing your age! My dad watched both those shows... xD

   I know right? I swear to God im 15 and looking forward to being all mature when I hit 16... lol