Quote taken from news posted on http://battle.net:

[quote]
We have been working on a new patch for StarCraft, and it includes a host of new features to streamline and enhance multiplayer competition. You can expect the update to be available for download in the next few weeks, but we wanted to give you a taste of what’s in store for you when the patch does arrive.

The multiplayer chat screen will now show a preview of the map you will play on.
The creator of a private Battle.net game can now make the game public under the creator’s name in the multiplayer chat screen.
A Friends List will be added to the game to keep track of your friends on Battle.net.
Friend mail will be added to the game to let you email members of your Friends List.
A password-recovery and email-registration function will be added to allow you to recover your password via email.
A minimap ping will be added to the game to allow you to ping a location on the map.
It will now be easier to set building rally points.
We will include updated versions of three of the most popular ladder maps – Lost Temple, Dire Straits, and Rivalry – in order to better suit the newer style of ladder play.
[/quote]

Finally StarCraft gets fully functional friend list support and email registration!

The new version byte will most likely be 0xCB right?

Maybe it'll start using the full SID_AUTH_* logon procedure like War3?

Hm, the only relavent thing in the patch the helps us is perhaps the ability to email reg now on Starcraft as well. Friendslist isn't really that new, you can request it already on Starcraft anyway. Good stuff for people that actually get on the client nowadays.

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=10258.msg96004#msg96004 date=1106324512]
Maybe it'll start using the full SID_AUTH_* logon procedure like War3?
[/quote]

I was thinking that too.  I dunno if they'd bother switching Starcraft to NLS though :/

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Goddammit that's so annoying.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=10258.msg96023#msg96023 date=1106336060]
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Goddammit that's so annoying.
[/quote]

Yes, don't we all hate when that happens?

The only features I think that should get added were the minimap ping, and the preview of the map.. Poor Arta. :(

By the sounds of the patch they want to make sc have the look of wc3, it could be interesting.

Personally, I hate having to implement more than 1 logon routine for the cdkeyed clients.

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=10258.msg96033#msg96033 date=1106341208]
Personally, I hate having to implement more than 1 logon routine for the cdkeyed clients.
[/quote]

Are you checking the actual product & from there deciding what to do?  That can't be a good idea

[code]
BinaryProducts->add(new BattleNet::BinaryClient('STAR', 'IX86', "Starcraft", VERSION_STAR,
BattleNet::EnterChatAccountName | BattleNet::EnterChatStatstring, BattleNet::CDKeyNumeric,
BattleNet::LogonAny, BattleNet::IconsBNI | BattleNet::IconsSTAR, false, true, 1, true, 'STAR', false, false,
"RATS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RATS", "Starcraft.exe", "Battle.snp", "Storm.dll"));
               
                ...

BinaryProducts->add(new BattleNet::BinaryClient('D2XP', 'IX86', "Diablo II: Lord of Destruction", VERSION_D2XP,
BattleNet::EnterChatAccountName | BattleNet::EnterChatRealmName | BattleNet::EnterChatCharacterName,
BattleNet::CDKeyAlphaNumeric, BattleNet::LogonAny, BattleNet::IconsNone, true, true, 2, false, 'D2XP',
false, false, NULL, "Game.exe", "D2Client.dll", "Bnclient.dll"));
               
                ...
               
BinaryProducts->add(new BattleNet::BinaryClient('WAR3', 'IX86', "Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos", VERSION_WAR3,
BattleNet::EnterChatNone, BattleNet::CDkeyLongAlphaNumeric, BattleNet::LogonNew, BattleNet::IconsWAR3,
false, true, 1, false, NULL, true, true, NULL, "War3.exe", "Game.dll", "Storm.dll"));
[/code]

...

[code]
explicit BinaryClient(const unsigned long _ProductId, const unsigned long _PlatformId,
const char* _ProductName, const unsigned long _VersionCode,
const unsigned int _EnterChat, const unsigned int _CDKey,
const unsigned int _Logon, const unsigned int _Icons, const bool _SupportsRealms,
const bool _CDKeyEncrypted, const unsigned int _CDKeyCount, const bool _SupportsUDP,
const unsigned long _GetChannelListProductId, const bool _SupportsClans,
const bool _SupportsServerSignature, const char* _Statstring, const char* _Executable,
const char* _NetworkProvider, const char* _GeneralLibrary)
                        ...
[/code]

This way i can do:

[code]
switch(currentproduct->LogonSupported) {
    case BattleNet::LogonAny:
      /* check logon version server asked us to use, either use SID_LOGONRESPONSE2 or  SID_AUTH_ACCOUNTLOGON */
    case BattleNet::LogonNew:
      /* use SID_AUTH_ACCOUNTLOGON */
    case BattleNet::LogonOld:
      /* use SID_LOGONRESPONSE */
}

...

if(currentproduct->CDKeyEncrypted) {
    /* check logon method & either send SID_AUTH_CHECK or SID_CDKEY2 */
} else {
    /* we send SID_CDKEY */

}

// after entering chat
if(currentproduct->SupportsClans) {
    /* request clan info for self & member list */
}
[/code]

And so on...

[quote author=UserLoser link=topic=10258.msg96039#msg96039 date=1106342408]
[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=10258.msg96033#msg96033 date=1106341208]
Personally, I hate having to implement more than 1 logon routine for the cdkeyed clients.
[/quote]

Are you checking the actual product & from there deciding what to do?  That can't be a good idea
[/quote]

No, I actually allow the user to select the logon sequence via a generic game profile that has a field for "LogonType".  I just don't like having to implement all those packets and would much rather have it a single sequence that was standard for all clients.  But the way I do it now is essentially how you do it.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=10258.msg96023#msg96023 date=1106336060]
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Goddammit that's so annoying.
[/quote]

So much for your hack!  :)

For different login sequences, why don't you just look at the LoginType field of SID_AUTH_INFO?  0 = old login, 1/2 = nls login.  All I'm going to have to change is the version byte and stuf.

[quote author=iago link=topic=10258.msg96062#msg96062 date=1106354708]
For different login sequences, why don't you just look at the LoginType field of SID_AUTH_INFO?  0 = old login, 1/2 = nls login.  All I'm going to have to change is the version byte and stuf.
[/quote]

Does War 2 support SID_AUTH_INFO?  And you have to know what logon type to send initially in SID_AUTH_INFO.

Warcraft II itself (that is, the game client) does not support SID_AUTH_INFO. However, Battle.net has no problem allowing a War2 emulator to use it to log on.

Wow, Battle.net cares nothing about Warcraft II. WHen was the last time it had a major update?

Not enough people play Warcraft II for Blizzard to care.  Everyone who matters has moved onto WAR3 & WoW.  Sorry to say, but WAR2 didn't have the same impression mark as SC/BW did.

[quote author=Yegg link=topic=10258.msg96079#msg96079 date=1106359956]
Wow, Battle.net cares nothing about Warcraft II. WHen was the last time it had a major update?
[/quote]
If i remember the last update to Warcraft II was labled final.

[quote author=Networks link=topic=10258.msg96006#msg96006 date=1106326010]
Hm, the only relavent thing in the patch the helps us is perhaps the ability to email reg now on Starcraft as well. Friendslist isn't really that new, you can request it already on Starcraft anyway. Good stuff for people that actually get on the client nowadays.
[/quote]

Obviously every product supports the friend list request packet, however only WarCraft III gets the other friend list packets for updating the list. This means that StarCraft will now support those packets.

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=10258.msg96064#msg96064 date=1106355477]
[quote author=iago link=topic=10258.msg96062#msg96062 date=1106354708]
For different login sequences, why don't you just look at the LoginType field of SID_AUTH_INFO?  0 = old login, 1/2 = nls login.  All I'm going to have to change is the version byte and stuf.
[/quote]

And you have to know what logon type to send initially in SID_AUTH_INFO.
[/quote]

Really? Since when?  I seem to recall sending this:
[code](DWORD) Protocol ID (0)
(DWORD) Platform ID
(DWORD) Product ID
(DWORD) Version Byte
(DWORD) Product language
(DWORD) Local IP for NAT compatibility*
(DWORD) Time zone bias*
(DWORD) Locale ID*
(DWORD) Language ID*
(STRING) Country abreviation
(STRING) Country[/code]
(with no login type specified)

And receiving this:
[code](DWORD) Logon Type
(DWORD) Server Token
(DWORD) UDPValue**
(FILETIME) MPQ filetime
(STRING) IX86ver filename
(STRING) ValueString[/code]

In the bot I'm writing, I base the decision whether or not to use NLS on that "Logon Type", not on which game client they're using.

[quote author=iago link=topic=10258.msg96120#msg96120 date=1106410844]
Really? Since when?  I seem to recall sending this:
[/quote]

I thought I saw warcraft 3 sending the logon type in SID_AUTH_INFO at one time or another.  Doesn't look it does currently, and perhaps it never did :\  But your point is taken.  I like emulating clients exactly has they behave with little deviation so as to avoid any of those crazy bans they've implemented in the past.

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=10258.msg96251#msg96251 date=1106444958]
[quote author=iago link=topic=10258.msg96120#msg96120 date=1106410844]
Really? Since when?  I seem to recall sending this:
[/quote]

I thought I saw warcraft 3 sending the logon type in SID_AUTH_INFO at one time or another.  Doesn't look it does currently, and perhaps it never did :\  But your point is taken.  I like emulating clients exactly has they behave with little deviation so as to avoid any of those crazy bans they've implemented in the past.
[/quote]

One time someone posted it supported sending 'BNET' for the protocol id, but it never did

[quote author=Mephisto link=topic=10258.msg96083#msg96083 date=1106360469]Sorry to say, but WAR2 didn't have the same impression mark as SC/BW did.
[/quote]

What are you, nuts? Warcraft II was a ground-breaking, universally acclaimed game. That game's success is the single biggest reason why the real-time strategy genre is the way it is today. It was PC Gamer's Game of the Year back in the mid-90s, and has been enshrined in Gamespot's Hall of Fame.

The fact that its popularity has waned does not mean the game wasn't important.

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=10258.msg96004#msg96004 date=1106324512]
Maybe it'll start using the full SID_AUTH_* logon procedure like War3?
[/quote]

Why would they?

[quote author=LoRd[nK] link=topic=10258.msg96417#msg96417 date=1106563586]
[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=10258.msg96004#msg96004 date=1106324512]
Maybe it'll start using the full SID_AUTH_* logon procedure like War3?
[/quote]

Why would they?
[/quote]

The main reason they would is because it's more secure.  Unless, if course, you're using BNLS, but shh...

I think that if they were to update Starcraft to use it, they'd also update War2/D2 to use it at the same time.  I kinda doubt they will, though.

[quote author=iago link=topic=10258.msg96422#msg96422 date=1106576899]
[quote author=LoRd[nK] link=topic=10258.msg96417#msg96417 date=1106563586]
[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=10258.msg96004#msg96004 date=1106324512]
Maybe it'll start using the full SID_AUTH_* logon procedure like War3?
[/quote]

Why would they?
[/quote]

The main reason they would is because it's more secure.  Unless, if course, you're using BNLS, but shh...

I think that if they were to update Starcraft to use it, they'd also update War2/D2 to use it at the same time.  I kinda doubt they will, though.
[/quote]

ah, we think alike — my first thought was security, but then I thought about the legacy clients.  There's also DI and CHAT they'd have to deal with.

With the legacy products, the patches were supposedly final, so I find it unlikely that Blizzard would modify them and if they didn't and switched to the new login protocol, it would create account compatability issues.  There has also been no announcements for such updates.

As for chat clients: I always assumed that the reason why they never gave CHAT the ability to logon to War3 accounts was because they didn't want to compromise the increased security that War3 accounts had to offer and if that's true, it would mean the abolishment of the chat protocol altogether.

Along with the trouble it would cause Blizzard, all of the accounts would have to be upgraded to the new system which would cause trouble for the user.

I think that the upgrading of the login protocol is a nice idea in thought, but I doubt it's going to happen due to the large amount of work required to do so.

[quote author=Networks link=topic=10258.msg96006#msg96006 date=1106326010]
Hm, the only relavent thing in the patch the helps us is perhaps the ability to email reg now on Starcraft as well. Friendslist isn't really that new, you can request it already on Starcraft anyway. Good stuff for people that actually get on the client nowadays.
[/quote]

Well, it would give you the ability to recover accounts using SC as well as the ability to receive the actual friend's status packets (When they come online/offline, etc) which up until now, was only applicable when using War3.  For some, those changed might come in handy.

I don't think they care about compatibility with CHAT.  They've been restricting CHAT more and more, and I wouldn't be overly suprised if they just dropped it entirely.

As for announcements, the change would be invisible for anybody on a real client (I assume they wouldn't force new accounts or a new namespace), so Blizzard would have no reason to announce it.

[quote author=iago link=topic=10258.msg96442#msg96442 date=1106588129]
As for announcements, the change would be invisible for anybody on a real client (I assume they wouldn't force new accounts or a new namespace), so Blizzard would have no reason to announce it.
[/quote]
It wouldn't be entirely invisible; you'd have to download a new real client.  :P

[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=10258.msg96443#msg96443 date=1106588439]
[quote author=iago link=topic=10258.msg96442#msg96442 date=1106588129]
As for announcements, the change would be invisible for anybody on a real client (I assume they wouldn't force new accounts or a new namespace), so Blizzard would have no reason to announce it.
[/quote]
It wouldn't be entirely invisible; you'd have to download a new real client.  :P
[/quote]

The login changes would be invisible.  People don't understand what a NLS login is compared to a legacy login. 

I don't see why you'd download a new client, but having a patch applied is normal for Blizzard products, and people understand them.

[quote author=iago link=topic=10258.msg96422#msg96422 date=1106576899]
The main reason they would is because it's more secure.  Unless, if course, you're using BNLS, but shh...
[/quote]

What are you trying to say?

[quote author=UserLoser link=topic=10258.msg96471#msg96471 date=1106595592]
[quote author=iago link=topic=10258.msg96422#msg96422 date=1106576899]
The main reason they would is because it's more secure.  Unless, if course, you're using BNLS, but shh...
[/quote]

What are you trying to say?
[/quote]

BNLS is backdoored.  Run!

You should know that the information you send BNLS is sent plain-text which pretty much makes hashing pointless for anything other than passing authorization.

[quote author=LoRd[nK] link=topic=10258.msg96473#msg96473 date=1106595937]
[quote author=UserLoser link=topic=10258.msg96471#msg96471 date=1106595592]
[quote author=iago link=topic=10258.msg96422#msg96422 date=1106576899]
The main reason they would is because it's more secure.  Unless, if course, you're using BNLS, but shh...
[/quote]

What are you trying to say?
[/quote]

BNLS is backdoored.  Run!

You should know that the information you send BNLS is sent plain-text which pretty much makes hashing pointless for anything other than passing authorization.
[/quote]

That's correct -- Blizzard can use all the strong encryption methods they want, but as long as people are sending passwords in cleartext to BNLS, the security is voided.

[quote author=iago link=topic=10258.msg96454#msg96454 date=1106589840]I don't see why you'd download a new client, but having a patch applied is normal for Blizzard products, and people understand them.[/quote]

I believe his point was that they'd need to upgrade all legacy clients (Diablo 1, Starcraft, Warcraft II, maybe the sharewares), and such an upgrade would be in the form of a patch, but they haven't announced any further patches for d1/w2.

If I recall right, lots of older-tenured Blizzard staff have left the company. While they'd still have the code, I wonder if they have many people left who are actually familiar with how those older games were written...patching them could be a rather involved process.

Even if those people that worked on the legacy clients were still there, you'd be surprised how quickly memories can fade. If you haven't worked on a project for years and then a new major patch was wanted, you'd have to reaquaint yourself with your own code again, just to figure out what all is needed.

We managed to find and interpret their login code from assembly, hopefully they could go back and do it from (I'm sure somewhat) commented C code.  Hopefully.  That is, of course, only if they care.

[quote author=iago link=topic=10258.msg96442#msg96442 date=1106588129]
I don't think they care about compatibility with CHAT.  They've been restricting CHAT more and more, and I wouldn't be overly suprised if they just dropped it entirely.

As for announcements, the change would be invisible for anybody on a real client (I assume they wouldn't force new accounts or a new namespace), so Blizzard would have no reason to announce it.
[/quote]

I doubt they'd just drop it. Isn't its main use just to see if you can even get on battle.net using a username and password? Seems like its uses are just for connectivity and logon purposes for battle.net.

I always thought it was because people wanted to chat on bnet from friends houses and stuff without installing a client, thus Bnet via Telnet was created. Then again, I'm usually wrong.

[quote author=iago link=topic=10258.msg96442#msg96442 date=1106588129]
I don't think they care about compatibility with CHAT.  They've been restricting CHAT more and more, and I wouldn't be overly suprised if they just dropped it entirely.
[/quote]

They wouldn't drop chat entirely, because Blizzard reps use it.

I remember when USEast was covered in bots, all the mad server splits and crap.

[quote author=woodtroll link=topic=10258.msg98089#msg98089 date=1107464786]
I remember when USEast was covered in bots, all the mad server splits and crap.
[/quote]I always found that entertaining...I recall when I first saw someone on a bot, I was UBER impressed!

[quote author=Rizon link=topic=10258.msg98083#msg98083 date=1107462298]
[quote author=iago link=topic=10258.msg96442#msg96442 date=1106588129]
I don't think they care about compatibility with CHAT.  They've been restricting CHAT more and more, and I wouldn't be overly suprised if they just dropped it entirely.
[/quote]

They wouldn't drop chat entirely, because Blizzard reps use it.
[/quote]

Blizzard reps have indicated that they'll soon be changing to using JavaOp to connect.

rofl.

[quote author=Rizon link=topic=10258.msg98083#msg98083 date=1107462298]
[quote author=iago link=topic=10258.msg96442#msg96442 date=1106588129]
I don't think they care about compatibility with CHAT.  They've been restricting CHAT more and more, and I wouldn't be overly suprised if they just dropped it entirely.
[/quote]

They wouldn't drop chat entirely, because Blizzard reps use it.
[/quote]
heh when last i checked, TechBot was an nbbot.

How did you check?

It's not like it would be the first time a Blizzard employee used a 3rd party binary bot.  I seem to recall DavidN having fun with loading as many nbbots as he could.